Senior Management Board, March 24, 2004 - STATES

Senior Management Board
Falmouth Holiday Inn
March 24, 2004
6:30 – 9:30 p.m.
Meeting Minutes
Members: Organization: Telephone: E-mail:
George “Chuckie” Green Town of Mashpee 508-477-0985 Bos@ci.mashpee.ma.us
Frank Pannorfi Town of Sandwich 508-888-8517 Frankpannorfi@aol.com
Linda Zuern Town of Bourne 508-564-4875 Lzuern@townofbourne.com
Virginia Valiela Town of Falmouth 508-548-7611 Valiela@meganet.net
Maurice Foxx (sitting in Comm. Indian Affairs 617-640-9488 thebearman488@aol.com
for Mark Harding)
CAPT Dave Brimblecom USCG 508-968-6300 dbrimblecom@ascapecod.uscg.mil
LTC Dave Cunha E&RC 508-968-5908 david.cunha@ma.ngb.army.mil
Col. Paul Worcester 102 nd FW 508-968-4667
Gary Moran MA DEP 508-946-2117 gary.moran@state.ma.us
Mary Sanderson US EPA 617-918-1381 Sanderson.mary@epa.gov
Martha Steele MDPH 617-624-5757 Martha.steele@state.ma.us
Attendees: Organization: Telephone: E-mail:
Lynda Wadsworth E&RC 508-968-5752
Alan Cowles E&RC
William Sullivan E&RC 508-968-5147 William.sullivan@ma.ngb.army.mil
Emily Derbyshire E&RC 508-968-5146 Ederbysh@ch2m.com
Sally Hartmann E&RC 508-968-5145 sally.hartman@ma.ngb.army.mil
Hap Gonser IAGWSP 508-968-5107 Kent.gonser@ma.ngb.army.mil
Ben Gregson IAGWSP 508-968-5821 Ben.gregson@ma.ngb.army.mil
Jon Davis AFCEE/MMR 508-968-4670 Jon.davis@mmr.brooks.af.mil
Mike Minior AFCEE/MMR 508-968-4670 Mike.minior@mmr.brooks.af.mil
Henry Byers AFCEE/MMR 508-968-4670
Doug Karson AFCEE/MMR 508-968-4670
Bob Cannon USCG 508-968-6487
Lt. Col. Dan Epright Cape Cod AFS 508-968-7327 Dan.epright@capecod.af.mil
Justin Mierz MDPH 617-245-5757 Justin.mierz@state.ma.us
Meghan Cassidy US EPA 617-918-1387 Meghan.cassidy@epa.gov
Bryan Olson US EPA 617-918-1365 olson.bryan@epa.gov
Todd Borci US EPA 617-918-1358
David Dow Sierra Club 508-540-7142
Chuck Raymond GeoSyntec 978-263-9588 craymond@geosyntec.com
Jim Quin Ellis Environmental 720-963-9346 James.quin@ellisenv.com
Jane Moran Portage Environmental 508-759-9114 Jmoran@portageenv.com
Handouts Distributed at Meeting:
1. Presentation handout: Rapid Response Action Plans for Central Impact Area & Demolition
Area 2 Soil
2. Presentation handout: Remediation & Investigation Update
3. Presentation handout: AFCEE Budget FY‘04-‘05
4. Presentation handout: CS-4, CS-20, CS-21 and FS-29 (SWOU) Design/Construction Update

5. Presentation handout: LF-1 Update
6. Presentation handout: Ashumet Valley Surface Water Sampling
7. Presentation handout: Chemical Spill 10 New Data and Way Forward
8. MMR Information Repository Bookmark
9. PAVE PAWS Monthly Update – Volume 03-04 – March 9, 2004
Agenda Item #1. Introductions, Late Breaking-News, Approval of 11/19/2004 Meeting Minutes
Ms. Valiela convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. and the Senior Management Board (SMB) members
introduced themselves.
Mr. Gonser introduced Robert Perry, operations director for the Impact Area Groundwater Study
Program (IAGWSP), who joined the staff in January 2004. He said that Mr. Perry, a bioenvironmental
engineer who retired from the Air Force a couple of years ago, will be responsible for undertaking all
activities and support needed to move the program forward in the cleanup phase. Mr. Gonser further
noted that Mr. Perry has held high positions in Europe and at the Pentagon, has a great deal of
experience in management and military activities, and is a former selectman of Dighton,
Massachusetts.
Mr. Perry added that he is a registered professional engineer in Massachusetts, and also taught algebra
to seventh graders after retiring from the Air Force. He said that he thinks that the ongoing cleanup
work at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) is necessary and worthwhile, and he’s happy
to be part of it.
Ms. Valiela asked if there were any changes or additions to the November 19, 2003 SMB meeting
minutes. No changes were offered and the minutes were approved as written.
Agenda Item #2. SMB/Community News
Natural Resources Trustee Council
Mr. Byers reported that the next full meeting of the Natural Resources Trustee Council (NRTC) is
scheduled for April 27, 2004 at the Falmouth Holiday Inn, when the trustees will consider comments
on the draft preliminary assessment screen (PAS). A trustee conference call is scheduled for May 25,
2004 to discuss the draft PAS and the way forward. The final draft PAS is expected to be out for
public comment on July 16, 2004, with a public hearing to follow sometime in August 2004.
Ms. Valiela asked if the April 27, 2004 meeting would be open to the public. Mr. Byers replied that it
would.
Ms. Sanderson asked whether the NRTC has found a way forward on some of the “sticky” issues
having to do with concerns about the constituents. Mr. Byers replied that it’s a little early to say, but
he’s hopeful that these issues can be resolved before a final draft is issued.
IART Membership
Ms. Sanderson informed the group that on February 25, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issued a news release to invite Sandwich citizens to apply for membership on the
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 2 OF 18

Impact Area Review Team (IART), which is in need of more members from that town. She said that
to date there has been no response to this recruitment effort. She also noted that she has application
forms with her and would ask Mr. Pannorfi to take some to the Sandwich selectmen’s meeting. Ms.
Sanderson also said that anyone interested in applying for membership should contact Jim Murphy at
EPA.
Agenda Item #3. Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Updates
Rapid Response Actions for Central Impact Area & Demolition Area 2 Soil
Mr. Gregson displayed a map of the Central Impact Area and noted that it shows aerial magnetometry
survey data, soil sampling results, the Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX) plume, an outline of the
Central Impact Area operable unit, and groundwater flow direction. He said that the targets at the
Central Impact Area are likely sources of RDX and other explosives contamination that leach into
groundwater. He also noted that the IAGWSP is about to complete its focused investigation on two of
those targets: Target 42, an old tank located on Turpentine Road, and Target 23, a steel boiler located
south of Tank Alley. Mr. Gregson explained that these targets were selected because they are
somewhat isolated and it’s believed that the investigation will provide information on the distribution
of contaminants and unexploded ordnance (UXO) around the targets. He said that information from
the focused investigation will be used to guide the removal action at the site.
Mr. Gregson stated that the Rapid Response Action (RRA), which is an interim action conducted prior
to implementation of a final remedy, will remove potential sources of groundwater contamination, and
provide information on the effectiveness of the action with respect to the other targets at the Central
Impact Area. He noted that lysimeters (devices that measure soil contaminant content) have been
installed at the sites, and lysimeter data from before and after the removal action will be reviewed in
order to determine effectiveness of the action.
Mr. Gregson noted that the Central Impact Area RRA, which is scheduled to be conducted this
summer, will involve the excavation of between 1,000 to 1,500 yards of soil from each of the two
target areas. The excavated soil will be transported to the thermal treatment unit that’s set up at the
Demolition Area 1 (Demo 1) site. The soil will be treated and then put into the Demo 1 depression.
Mr. Gregson displayed a map of the Demo 2 area, which he described as similar to the Demo 1 site,
but smaller. He pointed out the RDX plume that originates from Demo 2, and noted that no
perchlorate has been detected at the site. He also said that the soil berm identified at Demo 2 appears
to be the result of one or more occasions when the surface soil was scraped up and pushed aside by a
bulldozer. The RDX contamination is being found in the soil that makes up the berm. Soil removal at
the berm is scheduled to occur this summer. The excavated soil will be transported to the thermal
treatment unit, and the cleaned soil will be put into the Demo 1 depression.
Mr. Gregson announced that a 14-day informal public comment period on the Demo 2 RRA plan
started at last night’s IART meeting. Comments can be submitted to the IAGWSP by phone, in
writing, or by e-mail to Kristina.curley@ma.ngb.army.mil.
Ms. Sanderson inquired about the presentation slide notation about off-site disposal as a possible
alternative for the excavated soil. Mr. Gregson explained that if any Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) characteristic waste were found at the sites – which is not anticipated to happen
– that soil would not be sent to the thermal treatment unit, but would be sent off site for disposal.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 3 OF 18

Mr. Foxx asked how long the contaminated soil has been at Demo 2. Mr. Gregson replied that it
appears that the berm has been there for at least 10 years, given the size of the trees that are growing
on it.
Mr. Dow inquired about an estimate of contaminant mass at the RRA sites. Mr. Gregson replied that
he doesn’t have those numbers handy, but could e-mail them to Mr. Dow. Mr. Dow explained that
he’s interested in knowing whether the actions will remove a significant amount of mass that’s feeding
the plumes, or whether they are simply sites that can be dealt with rapidly without having to excavate
large areas and remove UXO. Mr. Gregson replied that the sites appear to be a continuing source of
groundwater contamination, and it’s thought that the RRAs at both Demo 2 and the Central Impact
Area will have some positive impact.
Mr. Dow asked if it’s known when other components of the Central Impact Area source area would be
addressed. Mr. Gregson replied that there are about 30 other targets there that have some detectable
concentrations of explosives, and there could be levels of explosives anywhere throughout the 300acre
soil operable unit that could be contributing to groundwater. He noted that ways to deal with that
much larger problem would be sorted out as part of the feasibility study process, which could take a
couple of years.
Mr. Green referred to the Demo 2 figure and questioned whether it would be wise to install some
monitoring wells left of the berm. Mr. Gregson replied that he doesn’t think there’s any indication that
any activity occurred there. Mr. Gonser explained that contamination from the berm would not travel
there because the direction of groundwater flow is north in that area.
Demolition Area 1 RRA
Mr. Gregson stated that the Demo 1 RRA for soil involves excavating about 15,000 cubic yards of soil
to be run through the thermal treatment unit. The work is ongoing and fifty-nine 50’x50’ grids have
been excavated, 53 of which tested nondetect for explosives and perchlorate, while the other six
require some additional excavation. Work is being done at the two-foot depth excavation zone, and
will be followed by work at the zone where soil removal will be to a depth of about eight feet, or until
natural, undisturbed soil is reached. Mr. Gregson showed a photograph of the Demo 1 site, pointed out
some frozen ponded water there, and noted that excavated soil is screened on site and then transported
to the thermal treatment unit.
LTC Cunha inquired about the area to which the cleaned soil would be returned. Mr. Gregson replied
that the majority of the treated soil would be returned to the deep (8 to 10 foot) excavation zone. He
noted that soils from the other RRA sites would be treated and brought to the Demo 1 site as well. He
also said that the additional soil would not raise the grade there by more than a foot or so overall.
Mr. Gregson showed a photograph of the thermal treatment unit, which is located on the H Range,
near the entrance of Demo 1. He noted that proof-of-performance (POP) tests of the unit will
commence in about one week, and shakedown tests are ongoing. He also pointed out the rotating
drum where the soil is heated, as well as the air pollution control components – the cyclone, the hightemperature
oxidizer, the baghouse, and the emissions stack.
Mr. Gregson reported that work on the Demo 1 RRA for groundwater is proceeding. The innovative
technology evaluation (ITE) system at Pew Road is operating and pumping at a rate of 10 gallons per
minute (gpm). The purpose of the ITE is to assess the ability of three different media (two ion
exchange media and one amended granular activated carbon) to treat perchlorate and explosives. After
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 4 OF 18

the ITE is completed this summer, the system will be “ramped up” to a pumping rate of 100 gpm. Mr.
Gregson also noted that the IAGWSP is working on the modular treatment system at Frank Perkins
Road, which will pump a total of 220 gpm, and is expected to become operational in September 2004.
Mr. Moran inquired about the timeframe for treating the Demo 1 soil. Mr. Gregson replied that it’s
expected to take about 24 days to treat the Demo 1 soil at the thermal treatment unit, which runs 24
hours a day. He also said that the treatment unit will probably operate for about two months, in order
to treat soils brought in from the other sites as well.
Mr. Dow asked how the soil would be reconditioned after treatment, since the process removes all
organic matter. Mr. Gregson replied that the plan is to conduct the restoration by using the treated soil
as backfill and then covering it with area topsoil and plantings.
Mr. Green mentioned the idea of speaking to the nearby towns about utilizing organic material that
they want to get rid of. Mr. Gregson said that that is something to consider, although there are
concerns about bringing in invasive species from off post.
Ms. Sanderson thanked those who found a way to overcome the funding difficulties associated with
the Demo 1 groundwater treatment system. She also encouraged the IAGWSP to look for every soil
treatment opportunity and take full advantage of the thermal treatment unit while it’s up and running
on the base. Mr. Gregson noted that there are plans to speak about that very issue tomorrow, with Mr.
Borci of EPA and Mr. Pinaud of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
J-1, J-2 Ranges Recent Unvalidated Results
Mr. Gregson stated that the J-1 and J-2 Ranges are part of the Southeast Ranges, contractor-operated
test ranges located southeast of the Central Impact Area. He noted that plumes of RDX and
perchlorate originating from the J-1 Range are heading off to the northwest. He also reported that
RDX was recently detected in monitoring well 315 (MW-315) at a concentration of about 2 parts per
billion (ppb). Mr. Gregson said that MW-315 is part of program of nine monitoring wells installed to
asses the extent of contamination from the interberm area. He also pointed out that the J-1 Range
contamination is at the very upper end of the zone of contribution (ZOC) for the Upper Cape Water
Cooperative (the Co-op) water supply well #3.
Mr. Gregson stated that the contamination originating at the J-2 Range is an even more significant
concern. The initial detection of perchlorate in that area, at MW-289, was at a concentration of about
300 ppb in profile sampling. The groundwater sample taken from MW-289 came back at about 140
ppb. The detections at MW-289 led to the initiation of a drilling program that included a couple wells
around that location to understand the width of contamination, and four wells on Wood Road, where
the highest perchlorate detection was about 90 ppb. The investigation then stepped out to Jefferson
Road, where MW-296 was drilled and tested nondetect for perchlorate and explosives. MW-313
showed perchlorate at about 5 ppb and RDX at less than 1 ppb. MW-318 tested nondetect for
perchlorate, and profile results from well location J2P-36 are expected later this week.
Mr. Gregson said that it appears that the plume reaches beyond Jefferson Road to some extent, toward
the ZOC for the Co-op water supply well #2. He also noted, however, that the sentry wells for water
supply well #2, which are about five years upgradient, have tested clean. Mr. Gregson said that based
on the available data, downgradient monitoring well locations will be selected to define the toe of the
plume – possibly on Barlow Road or Gibbs Road.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 5 OF 18

Mr. Gregson reported that another area of J-2 Range contamination, heading east, is starting to be
identified at the base boundary with the town of Sandwich. Two recently drilled wells, MW-310 and
MW-319, both showed perchlorate detections in the 10 ppb range. Particle backtracks from those
wells indicate the possibility of multiple sources (individual burial pits or burn pits) on the J-2 Range.
Mr. Gregson mentioned that the source area of the plume heading toward water supply well #2 is a
known disposal area at the J-2 Range.
Mr. Gregson stated that the contamination seen at MW-310 and MW-319 is heading off post to the
east, to an area that’s in the upper end of both the ZOC for the Co-op’s water supply well #1, and at
the very tail end of the ZOC for the Town of Sandwich supply well. Mr. Gregson then pointed out
MW-57, one of the far-field wells installed three to four years ago. He noted that this well has five
screens, throughout the entire aquifer, which tested nondetect for explosives and perchlorate. He said
that this could be good news, but it must be determined whether the contamination might somehow be
going around that location.
Mr. Gregson also explained that the J Ranges are situated in a very complicated area – at the top of the
mound. Groundwater flows radially from around the top of the mound, which also switches positions
over time. He said that understanding and trying to predict groundwater flow direction for the J-Range
plumes “really stretches the capabilities of both our brains and the computer models.”
Mr. Green asked if it’s known how fast the J Range plumes are traveling. Mr. Gregson explained that
near the top of the mound, groundwater travels some distance vertically before starting to move out
horizontally. Beyond that point, however, the groundwater travels at the standard estimate of about
one foot per day. He also noted that the timing of the releases in the area is really unknown. While
records seem to indicate that an area of the J-2 Range was used for disposal in the 1960s or 1970s,
little is known about the use of other burn pits on the ranges because of the lack of knowledge about
past contractor activities that occurred there.
Ms. Valiela inquired about the Co-op’s knowledge of the findings at the J Ranges. Mr. Gregson
confirmed that the IAGWSP routinely communicates with the Co-op. He also noted that David Hill
from the IAGWSP and Mike Goydas from Jacobs Engineering recently met with the entire Co-op and
provided a detailed explanation of the investigation findings to date. Mr. Gregson also noted that the
IAGWSP just received permission from the Co-op to sample its sentry wells.
Northwest Corner Recent Unvalidated Detections
Mr. Gregson stated that the Northwest Corner investigation is continuing, and two more wells (NWP-
8a and NWP-13) are going to be drilled. He noted that the IAGWSP is going through the real estate
process to obtain access to drill NWP-13, which would be located on the condominium complex
property.
Mr. Gregson said that the Northwest Corner investigation area encompasses an off-post area in the
town of Bourne as well as on-post training areas B9 and B11 and four former gun positions, GP-16,
GP-14, GP-12, and GP-19. He mentioned the Northwest Corner Investigation Data Summary Report
and noted that a total of 30 existing monitoring wells have been sampled, and 21 new wells have been
installed. Soil samples have been collected at 52 locations, and three samples of suspected fireworks
debris were collected from Canal View Road and sampled. Mr. Gregson referred to a map of the area
and pointed out the fireworks launch area behind the tech school.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 6 OF 18

Mr. Gregson noted that the Northwest Corner plume, as depicted, is about 315 acres in size. The
maximum perchlorate concentration seen is 19 ppb, at MW-278. Mr. Gregson then pointed out MW-
270, where perchlorate was detected from the water table all the way down to bedrock. He said that
there’s still no explanation for that particular distribution, and other nearby wells have shown
perchlorate at much shallower depths, right near the water table.
Mr. Gregson reported that the private well identified as RSNW03 has had consistent perchlorate
detections at levels just less than 2 ppb. The residents there have been provided with bottled water
since last summer because of these detections. He also reported that RDX has been detected at
concentrations less than 1 ppb in three off-post wells: MW-284; RSNW06, an irrigation well; and at
the condominium complex’s community supply well.
Mr. Gregson stated that numerous soil samples have been collected as part of the investigation, both
along Canal View Road and at the gun positions. Soil sampling conducted last summer just before and
just after July’s fireworks showed little to no perchlorate before the fireworks and concentrations up to
7,500 ppb after the fireworks. Mr. Gregson noted that these particular soil sampling events were not
conducted under a written approved EPA or DEP workplan. However, the samples were collected
according to normal sampling protocols and were tested at the laboratory that the IAGWSP uses for all
of its other sample results.
Mr. Gregson noted that the depth of the plume “at this location” is right at the water table, which
indicates a nearby source. Some of the RDX detections are deeper in the aquifer, which indicates a
more distant source up on the base. RDX is not a component of fireworks, so it’s thought that the
RDX contamination comes from a military source. It appears that the source of contamination involves
both fireworks and military training with pyrotechnics. The potential source area encompasses an area
that’s about 300 acres in size. Mr. Gregson also noted that the IAGWSP met with the regulators out in
the field today and will be discussing next steps tomorrow, possibly including the installation of a
couple more monitoring wells and some additional soil sampling to determine if there’s a continuing
source of perchlorate in the surface soil.
Ms. Zuern questioned how the perchlorate source area could have contributed to the southern portion
of the plume outline. Mr. Gregson pointed out the direction of groundwater flow, toward the canal.
He then explained that the prevailing wind in the area is from the southwest, as it was during last
July’s fireworks display. The fireworks go up into the air, and the debris is blown around and then
lands on the ground where it becomes a perchlorate source to the groundwater. Ms. Zuern said that
she still doesn’t understand how the fireworks source could have contributed to perchlorate
contamination in MW-298, given where Mr. Gregson indicated that the fireworks debris would be
expected to land. Mr. Gregson explained that there’s widespread, perhaps low-level contamination
“back in this area,” – not just a point source “right at this location.” He also said that there may be
other military training activities that occurred “back in that location” that are as yet unknown. Ms.
Zuern suggested that this would make sense since RDX is being found as well. Mr. Gregson noted
that because the RDX tracks back farther up on base, it might not be associated with “something right
at this location,” but this is another part of the investigation.
Ms. Valiela inquired about the history of fireworks displays in the area. Mr. Gregson replied that the
displays have been occurring annually at the tech school since 1996. He also noted that military use of
pyrotechnics on the base ceased in 1997. Now that the fireworks displays have been discontinued and
the military training activity has stopped, there is no ongoing source of contamination. He said that the
present focus should be on determining the extent of existing soil contamination and whether a
response action needs to be taken to address it.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 7 OF 18

Ms. Valiela asked if any other agency is helping to fund the Northwest Corner investigation. Mr.
Gregson indicated that from a funding standpoint, the IAGWSP is solely responsible for the
investigation.
Ms. Zuern confirmed that the Town of Bourne is not planning to have fireworks in that area again.
Mr. Dow inquired about the amount of perchlorate mass in the plume. Mr. Gregson replied that this
has not yet been determined. Mr. Dow then said that it’s his understanding that the perchlorate
contamination in soil that’s being attributed to fireworks is actually quite sporadic. He then suggested
that unless the amount of perchlorate mass in the plume is known, and it’s possible to determine the
contaminant mass in the potential source areas, it would be difficult to make any correlation between
the two. He explained, “…an area that has a lot of contamination but it’s spread over a wide area can
have more mass than a few areas that have high spikes of 7,500 (ppb) and that are separated by areas
where you hardly have any perchlorate.” He said that he thinks that before making any statements, the
IAGWSP should develop a sampling program to determine the mass in the potential source areas, do
transport modeling to determine how long it takes the contamination to reach the groundwater, and
then compare that with the mass that’s actually in the plume.
Mr. Dow also remarked that he can appreciate that the military doesn’t want to take responsibility for
the situation on Foretop Road (private well RSNW03) until some kind of federal or state standard for
perchlorate has been established. However, he views the residents of that home as “victims of
bureaucratic inertia” He acknowledged that the state has been providing the family with bottled water,
but also urged the state and the town to consider moving forward to pay for that residence to be
hooked up to the water main that already exists on that street, while waiting for the establishment of a
safe level for perchlorate.
Mr. Moran thanked Mr. Dow for his comments. He also noted that the regulators, the town, the water
suppliers, the IAGWSP, and the Army Environmental Center (AEC) are aware that the Foretop Road
situation has been going on for some time. He noted that the parties have had recent conversations
about developing a solution. Over the next couple weeks those discussions will continue as the goal is
to come up with a solution that addresses that situation in the short term. Mr. Moran also mentioned
that DEP had asked some questions and made some recommendations with respect to the Northwest
Corner Investigation Data Summary Report. He then asked Mr. Gregson to talk about the next steps
being considered in light of regulator comments on the report.
Mr. Gregson replied that, as he’d mentioned earlier, the IAGWSP plans to install a couple more
monitoring wells and conduct some additional soil sampling. He noted that soil sampling will be
conducted at the L-3 Range (a former training range) and at some of the gun positions. While that
work is being implemented, the IAGWSP will be going through the comment resolution process to
address the approximately 30 total pages of comments it received from EPA and DEP. Mr. Gregson
said that he thinks that the comments from both agencies will be very valuable in helping guide
additional investigation to answer the key questions of source, nature, and extent of contamination at
the Northwest Corner.
Ms. Garcia-Surette asked Mr. Gregson to weigh in on the particle track modeling discussed in the
summary report. Mr. Gregson said that the model was updated a couple weeks ago and additional
particle tracks are being run. He explained that particle backtracks from the perchlorate detections,
many of which are shallow, were used to help draw the upgradient extent of the perchlorate detections.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 8 OF 18

He also noted that there are some RDX detections, which track back farther up on the base, and may
go all the way back to the Impact Area.
IAGWSP Budget: Fiscal Year 2004
Mr. Gonser said that his presentation on the IAGWSP budget would be more of a program brief, as the
goal is not to try to spend money, but to clean up the soil and groundwater. Also, in response to Ms.
Sanderson’s recommendation to fully utilize the thermal treatment unit, Mr. Gonser told her that last
summer when the decision was made to bring the unit to the base to treat Demo 1 soil, he asked the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop plans for getting rid of all clearly actionable levels of
contaminants in soil at MMR sites. Subsequently, plans were developed for RRAs at the J-3, J-2, and
J-1 Ranges, Demo 2, and the Central Impact Area targets. In this way, use of the thermal treatment
unit really has been expanded significantly.
Mr. Gonser displayed a slide that showed a list of sites and cost figures associated with them. He
noted that the figures do not include other expenses, such as for building roads, for investigativederived
waste, for UXO, for quality assurance/quality control, data management, and so forth.
Mr. Gonser stated that because of the harsh winter and the unexpected amount of magnetic anomalies
found at the site, the Demo 1 project is going to cost more than originally predicted, with the RRA for
soil taking up about half of the Demo 1 budget ($9.7 million). The budget amount also covers the ITE,
the RRA for groundwater, a feasibility study, and initiation of the remedy selection process. Mr.
Gonser said that by the end of this fiscal year, Demo 1 should be well on its way toward final
completion.
Mr. Gonser noted that the budget for the Southeast Ranges ($15.5 million) has grown significantly, as
the level of effort there has almost doubled since the beginning of the year. He explained that there are
many unknowns and many different sources areas at the ranges, which, as Mr. Gregson mentioned, are
located at the top of the mound. Mr. Gonser stated that the budgeted amount will be used for the
following: delineation of soil contamination at all three J Ranges (J-1, J-2, and J-3); anomaly removal
at all three ranges; implementation of RRAs for soil at all three ranges; groundwater investigations at
all three ranges; and development of an RRA for groundwater at the J-3 Range. He said that the goals
are to identify and remove most, if not all, of the major source areas; to move forward very quickly
with the groundwater investigation, particularly the J-2 Range plume that’s south of the water supply
wells; and to have a plan in place in order to move forward with designing a treatment system to
address the J-3 Range plume. Mr. Gonser noted that the IAGWSP is looking into the possibility of
utilizing the Installation Restoration Program’s (IRP’s) Fuel Spill 12 (FS-12) treatment system to
address the J-3 Range plume. He also said that work at the Southeast Ranges will continue to be a
major effort in the future.
Mr. Gonser stated that the budget for the Central Impact Area site ($4 million) includes the focused
investigation and RRA at the two target areas. He noted that these are just two targets out of dozens at
the site, so the RRA planned there is just a start on the project. Nevertheless, that action will not only
eliminate two of the source areas, but also provide guidance on how to conduct future source area
removal actions at the Central Impact Area. The budgeted amount will also cover a soil screening
study and a soil ecological risk assessment, and, if warranted, some ecological field testing.
Otherwise, the project will move directly into a soil feasibility study. A groundwater feasibility study
will also be initiated this year, and then carried over into the following year.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 9 OF 18

Mr. Gonser then referred to the “Other Sites” category, for which $5.6 million is budgeted. He noted
that it’s hoped that the Demo 2 RRA for soil will remove that source area completely. He also said
that soil and groundwater investigations at Demo 2 will continue. Other projects where additional
investigation will be conducted are the Western Boundary area, the Northwest Corner, the Phase IIB
project, which involves a number of small sites, and the A Range and K Range. Mr. Gonser also
mentioned long-term monitoring (LTM), for which $2.5 million is budgeted. He said that LTM of the
numerous wells is adding up to a “pretty big bill,” and the IAGWSP is looking at ways to perhaps
reduce that cost.
Mr. Gonser also mentioned that since the program has begun moving from the investigation phase to
the remediation phase, flexibility to deal with cost growth is decreasing significantly. Whereas last
year funds could be moved around from one study to another, this cannot be done so easily when large
remediation projects that can’t be deferred are involved. For example, once the RRA projects at Demo
1, the Southeast Ranges, and so forth are launched, they must be completed no matter what the cost.
Consequently, these aspects of the program are becoming “fixed costs” and the IAGWSP will have to
work very hard to keep those costs within planned limits. Mr. Gonser noted that in the past virtually
100% of the IAGWSP’s budget was spent on investigation, and now at least 30% to 40% of the budget
is going toward cleanup.
Ms. Zuern asked if the thermal treatment unit is owned by a private company. Mr. Gonser confirmed
that it is. He explained that the IAGWSP is renting the unit, which was transported to MMR and
assembled on site.
Ms. Zuern also asked how the IAGWSP handled cost growth that occurred this year. Mr. Gonser
explained that originally the Demo 1 groundwater RRA system was to be done under a service
contract, which involves upfront payment for operations and maintenance (O&M) costs over the life of
the system, and the IAGWSP had programmed 20 years for those O&M costs. In order to deal with
the Military Construction (MILCON) issue, however, it was determined that modular units, rather than
a permanent building, would be used for the system. The money that would have gone toward longterm
O&M costs associated with the original system instead went toward the Demo 1 RRA for soil.
Other instances of cost growth, such as going from 22 to 42 monitoring wells at the J Ranges, were
handled by tightening up in other areas.
Ms. Valiela asked how long the thermal treatment unit is expected to be at MMR. Mr. Gonser replied
that the original goal was to have it off the base by October, but now he thinks that that might not
happen until a little later. He also said that he appointed Paul Nixon as the soil project coordinator
responsible for seeing that the various projects are timed so that the treatment unit is kept running
effectively. The challenge is to complete the workplans, get them approved by the regulators, and
have everything ready to go to excavate the soil and treat it at the thermal treatment unit. Mr. Gonser
noted that the original plan was to begin treating the Demo 1 soil first, and then add in the soil from
the other sites. However, the new plan is to begin treating the soil from the other sites first, and add in
the Demo 1 soil while “figuring out how to do more.” He also said that the efforts that need to be
integrated include paperwork, regulator approval, UXO work, on-site soil screening, and actual
treatment. Mr. Gonser further noted that the IAGWSP has offered the Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) use of the treatment unit while it’s on base.
Mr. Pannorfi inquired about the status of regulator approval of workplans. Mr. Gonser replied none of
the plans have been approved yet, but some are close, and the expectation is that there won’t be any
delays. He also noted that the IAGWSP is trying to develop a somewhat generic plan that can be
tweaked a little bit for each site, making the process easier. Mr. Pannorfi also asked how many hours a
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 10 OF 18

day the thermal treatment unit will run. Mr. Gonser replied that it will run 24 hours a day, seven days
a week. Mr. Pannorfi asked if Mr. Gonser is confident that there will be enough excavated soil to run
the unit 24 hours a day. Mr. Gonser said that that is the goal, but achieving it will require precise
coordination of excavating, screening, stockpiling, sampling, and treating.
Mr. Dow asked if this year’s budget is anticipated to be the peak of the IAGWSP’s expenditures. Mr.
Gonser replied that he expects the next few years’ budgets to be similar, with a likely increase in 2007
with the final remedies for the J Range plumes.
Agenda Item #4. Installation Restoration Program Updates
AFCEE Budget: Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005
Mr. Davis displayed a slide of the AFCEE/IRP Fiscal Year 2004 (FY’04) budget summary, and noted
that all the dollars have shifted from the “Studies” category to the “Capital Costs” and “O&M/LTM”
categories. He explained that over the next couple years, capital costs will begin to drop off as final
treatment systems are completed, and the program will be primarily an O&M program. He also noted
that the total budget for FY’04 is approximately $31 million, and that the capital costs (about $15
million) and O&M/LTM costs (about $14 million) are similar. Mr. Davis further noted that the
community involvement program is included in the O&M/LTM category, rather than the
“Administrative” category (about $2 million).
Mr. Davis displayed a slide that showed the FY’05 budget summary and noted that the numbers are
similar to the FY’04 budget. He also pointed out that this budget includes the final payment for the
Ashumet Valley nitrate offset program, which totaled $8.5 million dollars over the past six years. The
FY’05 budget also includes a potential modification to the LF-1 plume treatment system.
Mr. Davis also displayed a bar graph that showed program funding from FY’85 through FY’05, and
pointed out the spike at about $70 million in the 1998/1999 timeframe. He said that by the end of
FY’05, about $604 million will have been spent on this Superfund cleanup. Also, it’s anticipated that
by the time the final treatment plant is shut down, the cleanup will have cost a little more than $900
million.
CS-4, CS-20, CS-21, and FS-29
Mr. Davis showed a map of the Chemical Spill 4 (CS-4), CS-20, CS-21, and FS-29 plumes, formerly
known as the Southwest Operable Unit (SWOU) plumes, and now referred to as the Southwest
plumes. He also pointed out the location of the CS-23 plume, for which a remedial investigation is
ongoing. He noted that CS-4 was discovered in the early 1990s, while the other three Southwest
plumes were discovered in 1997. A groundwater treatment system for the CS-4 plume was installed in
1994. However, it turned out that that system was too shallow, and so it has been shut off. The CS-4
plume will be addressed along with the other three as part of the Southwest plumes system.
Mr. Davis stated that the Southwest plumes system will be the biggest IRP treatment system in terms
of dollars, gpm, and area addressed. The chief component will be the single treatment plant, located
on the Crane Wildlife Management Area (the Crane). He referred to a map of the area and pointed out
Sandwich Road, Route 151, the extraction system shown in red, and the reinjection system shown in
blue. He noted that the treated water would be reinjected into the aquifer at strategic locations in order
to provide hydraulic control of the plumes and prevent major disruptions of groundwater flow. Mr.
Davis stated that from east to west the system will cover about two miles, and when completed it will
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 11 OF 18

treat more than 5 million gallons of groundwater per day. He also mentioned that the treatment plant,
which will be about 100’x100’ in size, will contain 12 carbon filters.
Mr. Davis stated that the design is well under way, a contractor to build the system is on board, and the
project is going to be divided into three phases. The first phase includes the treatment plant, the arm of
the system headed east up through the Crane, an extraction well on the Coonamessett Reservation, and
under Route 151 onto Town of Falmouth property. He noted that AFCEE has a license with the Crane
to use its property there and is currently amending that license to codify the scope of the treatment
plant. The Crane will receive payment for use of that property.
Mr. Davis said that in order to obtain access for the leading edge extraction well for the CS-4 plume
(to be located on the Coonamessett Reservation), AFCEE went through a Notice of Intent process with
the Falmouth Conservation Commission. On February 4, 2004, AFCEE received an Order of
Conditions that involves a fairly extensive restoration program, including the transplantation of more
than 100 trees and bushes. Mr. Davis noted that the first phase of the project is currently at about 60%
design.
Mr. Davis then discussed the second phase of the project, which includes the pipeline down Boxberry
Hill Road, down Hatchville Road, and up a private road called Raspberry Path, where an extraction
well would be located. It also includes an extraction well and two reinjection wells along Boxberry
Hill Road. Mr. Davis stated that originally two leading edge extraction wells were planned for the CS-
20 plume. However, the current plan is to install one leading edge well with a higher pumping rate,
which affects primarily one property owner at the end of Raspberry Path. AFCEE is still working with
that property owner and hopes to present some final drawings within the next week or two.
Mr. Davis mentioned that AFCEE has three appraisers and three attorneys on board to help with the
title work, as 30 separate easements are needed to execute the project, for which access is a major
driver. He also said that survey drawings are being examined to determine whether the three wells
along Boxberry Hill Road can be installed in the road itself, rather than having to go onto private
parcels along the road.
Mr. Davis noted that AFCEE recently sent out a direct mailing to invite area residents to a public
informational meeting on April 7, 2004. Responses to that mailing included two phone calls today –
one from a woman who already has a monitoring well on her property and doesn’t want any more
work done there, and another from a man who pointed out that after repaving the roads a few years ago
following the town water hookup project, AFCEE will be tearing the roads up again for this project
and will have to repeat that restoration work.
Mr. Davis went on to discuss the final phase of the construction project, which involves a pipeline run
along Route 151 and work at the Ballymeade golf course/development. He pointed out the Fairway
Point condominiums at Ballymeade and commented that the Ballymeade Property Owners Association
has always supported the project and helped to find good locations. Recently the president and the
treasurer of that association gave agreement in concept for two well locations, and the appraisal
process for those locations has begun. Mr. Davis noted that ten wells are planned for the section
between Ballymeade Country Club and Fairway Point condominiums, and five of the ten designs have
been submitted for their review.
Mr. Davis said that the construction project is scheduled to begin in summer 2004 and be completed in
spring 2006. He also noted that the invitation to the April 7, 2004 public meeting was sent out to
about 1,000 homes, including to those residents who would be directly affected by the project, and
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 12 OF 18

those who routinely travel on the thoroughfares where construction work will occur. The meeting will
be held from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Ballymeade Country Club. In one room a posterboard
session will be set up and available for the entire time, and another room will be used for a
presentation that’s scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Davis also mentioned yesterday’s meeting dry
run, which was attended by the regulators, and he noted that a member of the Plume Cleanup Team
(PCT) helped with the presentation slides.
Ms. Valiela asked if roadside signs would be posted to announce the meeting. Mr. Davis replied that
they would. He also said that a meeting announcement would be published in the local newspapers.
LF-1 Plume Update
Mr. Davis stated that an interim treatment system consisting of five extraction wells, an infiltration
gallery, and a treatment plant is in place at the base boundary to address the Landfill 1 (LF-1) plume,
which is headed toward the town of Bourne. He noted that the goal of the interim system is not to cut
off the plume entirely, but to provide enough mass removal to restore the aquifer in the area between
the base boundary and Route 28 within 20 years of system startup. However, modeling indicates that
the system will not be able to meet that objective without some sort of modification.
Mr. Davis said that in June 2003 the PCT was informed that the LF-1 system was not able to meet
current remedial objectives. He also noted that AFCEE and the regulators had some disagreement as
to when an LF-1 system modification would need to occur. AFCEE believed that the action was not
needed immediately and said that if the system were expanded in three or four years, it would still
meet the remedial goal, as long as that goal wasn’t changed during the Interim Record of Decision
(IROD) to Record of Decision (ROD) process. AFCEE also noted that the CS-23 plume had to be
better understood before taking further action at the LF-1 plume, in order to avoid any kind of
smearing or inefficiency should treatment be required at CS-23.
Mr. Davis stated that in August 2003 AFCEE presented an interim resolution to the PCT. The
resolution consisted of accelerating the CS-23 investigation near LF-1. Results of that effort were
presented to the PCT in November 2003. Also at that time, AFCEE noted that it would be meeting
with the regulators on December 10, 2003 to determine a way forward for LF-1. Mr. Davis said that
AFCEE and the regulators reached an agreement in which AFCEE agreed to: proceed under the
assumption that an expansion to the LF-1 system would be required – sooner rather than later; conduct
additional investigation and model refinement needed for expansion design; and proceed with the
preliminary engineering to expand the LF-1 system. If the investigation shows that an expansion does
need to be done in the short term, AFCEE will be prepared because money to fund that project is
included in it FY’05 budget request. If the investigation shows that the modification could occur later,
it would be fully evaluated as a feasibility study alternative associated with the final decision for the
LF-1 plume.
Mr. Davis noted that the next steps are to codify the agreement in a project note that includes the
investigation workplan, conduct the investigation fieldwork in spring and summer 2004, and evaluate
the data and reach a decision in late summer 2004.
Mr. Pannorfi asked if a system expansion would include an additional treatment plant. Mr. Davis
replied that the existing treatment plant is operating at full capacity. If the system requires additional
extraction, it’s likely that an additional, smaller treatment plant would handle that groundwater.
Another option would be recirculating wells, where treatment occurs right at the well itself.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 13 OF 18

Col. Worcester referred to the 2001/2002 LF-1 plume depiction, mentioned that there seems to be an
apparent increase in flow from the source, and inquired about the dashed line near the source area. Mr.
Davis replied that in the updated plume depiction, that dashed line will be shown as a solid line. He
explained that the dashed line indicated the existence of contaminants there based on historical data,
not actual monitoring data. However, additional sampling has shown that the plume has definitely
detached from the landfill itself. The landfill cap is doing its job and there’s nothing new from the
landfill that’s affecting current decisions. Col. Worcester said that looking at the 2000/2001 plume
depiction and the 2001/2002 depiction, it appears that the plume reattached to the source. Mr. Davis
explained that a lack of sampling in that area affected the 2000/2001 interpretation of the plume. He
also said that the new plume depiction will show the definite detachment there.
Mr. Dow noted that the LF-1 IROD stated that the area of contamination west of Route 28 would
undergo monitored natural attenuation (MNA). He asked how long that process is expected to take.
Mr. Davis replied that he believes it will be decades before the contamination west of Route 28
eventually flows out to the harbors in Bourne. He also noted that biological activity associated with
MNA is not nearly as strong in that area as earlier anticipated, but is being seen more in the heart of
the plume. Mr. Dow inquired about the possibility of helping to facilitate the MNA process by adding
dissolved organic carbonates to the treated groundwater that’s reinjected into the aquifer, once the
treatment system is expanded. Mr. Davis replied that he doesn’t know what the implications would be
of doing something like that. He also pointed out the area of reinjection that’s designed to protect two
Bourne Water District wells, and added that if organics were injected, it could be that they wouldn’t be
able to catch up with the plume as it’s flowing away.
Ms. Valiela said that she remembers the community’s strong resistance to having treatment
components in the neighborhood west of Route 28, and she remembers that the plume mass west of
Route 28 was actually a fairly small amount. Mr. Davis agreed that the relative concentrations west of
Route 28 are definitely lower than those seen in the heart of the plume, approaching the treatment
system.
Ms. Zuern observed that the LF-1 plume outline does not extend out into Squeteague Harbor, although
contaminants have been detected there. Mr. Minior explained that the plume outline is based on
detections of 5 ppb, the maximum contaminant level for the chlorinated solvents and carbon
tetrachloride, which are the contaminants of concern in the LF-1 plume. Therefore, the very low-level
detections (around 1 ppb) in the Squeteague Harbor area would not show up in the depiction.
Ashumet Valley Surface Water Sampling
Mr. Davis said that the source of the Ashumet Valley plume was an old firefighter-training area and a
wastewater treatment plant in the southern corner of the base. The interim system operating at the
plume consists of three extraction wells, a treatment plant along Sandwich Road, and reinjection
galleries. The remedial objective is to restore that area of the aquifer for future use for Falmouth water
supply. Part of the IROD was to let the southern end of the plume continue to migrate and eventually
discharge to surface water or disperse and diffuse, and to implement a fairly extensive monitoring
program there.
Mr. Davis showed a map that depicts the leading edge of the plume and monitoring wells with
maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceedances, detections below MCL, and nondetects. He noted
that modeling indicated that the plume would likely begin upwelling into the Backhus River, which
involves a cranberry bog system and flows to the south. He then pointed out a monitoring well where
an MCL exceedance was detected, and noted that when the plume is redrawn that well would be
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 14 OF 18

included in the plume boundary. He also noted that data from late last summer indicated a need to
sample surface water in the Backhus River. Sampling was conducted last August, and a second round
of sampling was conducted in December, after the cranberry harvest. Results from the December
sampling were similar to those from the August sampling, with all locations testing nondetect except
for one, where perchloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) were detected at below-MCL
concentrations.
Mr. Davis stated that in order to fully understand how the toe of the plume is interacting with the
surface water, and to be certain that it’s not spreading, bifurcating, or being affected by the Bourne
River, AFCEE developed and is implementing a leading edge monitoring plan. The plan involves
additional monitoring well sampling, additional drive-point sampling, continued surface water
sampling, and a “pretty intensive” direct-push program, which involves a small drill rig for shallow
sampling that can be conducted at intervals. Mr. Davis noted that AFCEE has received approval from
the Falmouth Conservation Commission and from property owner Brian Handy to implement the
program, most of which will be handled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). He also said that a
full sampling of all the wells will be conducted in April in order to update the hydraulic assessment
and obtain updated chemical data.
Mr. Davis stated that as the Ashumet Valley plume goes through the IROD to ROD process, AFCEE
wants to be able to answer any questions that might arise about letting the toe of the plume go
uncaptured. He also noted that the Ashumet Valley Plume Annual Report will be published toward the
end of summer 2004, and AFCEE will update the PCT and the SMB on its findings.
Ms. Valiela inquired about analyzing the samples for nitrates. Mr. Davis replied that this type of
analysis has been done, and the additional well sampling will also look at detergents, which hasn’t
been done since 1999. He also noted that the nutrient analysis might not be done until the August
sampling round. Ms. Valiela asked if specific conductivity measuring is done. Mr. Davis replied that
it is. Ms. Valiela asked to be provided with an Ashumet Valley plume map that shows specific
conductivity data. Mr. Davis said that this could be provided. Ms. Valiela explained that residents of
Falmouth are also interested in information that pertains to the plume’s sewage treatment plant source.
Mr. Davis noted that AFCEE plans to install a permanent stream gauge for the Backhus River at Route
28, which he believes will provide helpful information for some of Falmouth’s programs.
Ms. Valiela mentioned the Bourne River and said that she thinks it must flow under Route 28 when it
reaches that point. Mr. Davis replied that he’s not very familiar with the river, but agrees that it must
flow under Route 28 and somehow eventually discharge to the ocean.
Mr. Dow asked if the low-level detections in the Backhus River made it difficult to harvest the
cranberries. Mr. Davis replied that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health did a reading of
those levels and determined that they were of no concern with respect to the cranberries. Mr. Minior
added that AFCEE provided the data to Jeff LeFleur of the Cape Cod Cranberry Growers Association,
who did not have any immediate concerns, but did ask to be kept informed.
Chemical Spill 10 – New Data and Way Forward
Mr. Davis stated that CS-10 is a large plume, located mainly on the base, but with its leading edge
extending out under Ashumet Pond and over to Johns Pond. Three treatment systems are currently
operating at the plume – one within the plume itself, one at the base boundary to cut off the plume, and
another consisting of one extraction well located in the area between Ashumet and Johns Ponds. Mr.
Davis noted that after having gone through the feasibility study and looking at alternatives to address
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 15 OF 18

the toe of the plume, some new data became available while the CS-10 proposed plan was being
prepared. That plan had involved: continued operation of the existing systems; additional treatment at
the toe’s north-central lobe (between Ashumet and Johns Ponds, where one well is currently
operating); a contingency remedy for the Horseshoe Bend area, to be implemented if that area did not
clean up as predicted; and long-term monitoring of the remainder of the plume.
Mr. Davis stated that although modeling indicated that MCL exceedances would never reach the
eastern side of Johns Pond, routine monitoring did in fact show a 5.7-ppb TCE detection right on top
of bedrock in a well east of Johns Pond. He reminded the group that the MCL for TCE is 5 ppb. He
also reported that in a southern lobe monitoring well, where detected TCE concentrations had been in
the single digits and teens historically, concentrations increased up to 49 ppb in the last couple
sampling rounds.
Mr. Davis said that in response to the detection east of Johns Pond, AFCEE notified the Mashpee
selectmen, the Mashpee Board of Health, and the Mashpee Water District. Also, although the majority
of residences in the area are hooked up to the Mashpee Water District system, AFCEE sent out
targeted notifications to ensure that anyone with a private well was offered the opportunity to
participate in the residential well sampling program, which has been increased from an annual to
biannual sampling. AFCEE also agreed to increase monitoring of its wells in the area. In addition,
AFCEE will sample the Mashpee Village supply well and associated sentry wells twice a year, as the
ZOC for the supply well is very close to the monitoring well where the 5.7-ppb TCE detection
occurred. The Mashpee Water District will also continue sampling those wells twice a year, so they’ll
be sampled quarterly. Mr. Davis further noted that AFCEE is looking at installing two additional
monitoring wells in that area this summer, and has started the process to obtain access.
Mr. Davis reported that in response to detections at the southern lobe of the leading edge of CS-10,
AFCEE reviewed the residential sampling requirements and determined that no expansion to the
residential sampling program would be required. In addition, AFCEE will increase its monitoring
network, and will look at installing an additional monitoring well this summer to make sure that the
extent of the southern lobe is understood.
Mr. Davis stated that in light of the new data, some basic assumptions concerning plume
characteristics are no longer valid, and EPA, DEP, and AFCEE agreed that publishing a proposed plan
under these conditions would be unwise. Therefore, the proposed plan has been put on hold until
further characterization of these two areas is accomplished. AFCEE has agreed to execute the design
and construction of additional treatment at the north-central lobe, with anticipated completion in spring
2005. Then, based on the results of the all the additional field work, a determination will be made as to
whether a supplemental feasibility study is needed to get the proposed plan process going again.
Ms. Valiela referred to the increased concentrations in the southern lobe and suggested that
contaminant concentrations under Ashumet Pond aren’t really known. Mr. Davis clarified that in fact
AFCEE had conducted an on-pond drilling program at Ashumet Pond in 1999. That program involved
two lines of wells, but it now appears that an area of higher concentrations existed between those lines
of wells and didn’t reach that permanent monitoring well until four years later.
Ms. Valiela inquired about the depth of that high-concentration contamination. Mr. Minior noted a
depth of about 120 feet below ground surface. Mr. Davis said that that is deeper than residential wells,
but above bedrock. He also mentioned the influence of the pond on the depth of the aquifer there. Ms.
Valiela asked if it’s correct that a monitoring well would be installed downgradient of the lobe, and if
significant levels of contaminant are detected there, another well would be installed farther
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 16 OF 18

downgradient. Mr. Davis agreed that this is correct. He also said that AFCEE wants to make sure that
a nearby shallow pond, Grassy Pond, hasn’t caused “something weird to happen with the plume.”
Ms. Valiela questioned how the plume could have traveled so far downstream, in terms of its rate of
feet per day. Mr. Davis explained that what’s commonly known as the CS-10 source area is not in fact
the only source area that’s contributed to the plume. Other areas, further downgradient, such as a
vehicle maintenance area, are also thought to have contributed to the plume. Other possible
contributors to the plume are the dozens of small sumps that were removed as part of the Drainage
Structure Removal Program. These additional source areas explain the timing of how the
contamination has traveled so far.
Mr. Dow said that he recalls hearing about a low-conductivity zone in Johns Pond that was expected to
trap plume contaminants from the western side of the pond. He asked if there’s something about the
subsurface geology that explains why the model didn’t predict that the contamination would reemerge
on the eastern side of the pond. Mr. Davis replied that he doesn’t think it was a flow condition in the
model, but more likely the contaminants that were seeded in the model. He also noted that an on-pond
drilling program was not conducted on Johns Pond.
Mr. Dow said that he remembers some deep detections, seven or eight years ago, that were north of
where the contaminant was detected recently. Mr. Minior said that during the data gap investigation
that was conducted as part of the original 60% design, some low-level concentrations of chlorinated
solvents were detected on the eastern side of Johns Pond. However, they weren’t constant and didn’t
appear to be related exactly to the plume, and couldn’t be explained. He also referred to the lowconductivity
zone that Mr. Dow had mentioned, and explained that conceptual models for the pond
had always projected that that zone might press the contaminants downward toward bedrock rather
than them being drawn up into the pond. He said that this could explain what’s being seen now, given
that that monitoring well on the eastern side is “down about 285 feet where we see the contamination.”
Mr. Green said that he thinks that’s the same well where a low-value concentration was detected just
one time, back when Jim Snyder was at MMR. Mr. Minior clarified that Mr. Green is referring to
MW-584, where TCE was recently detected at 5.7 ppb. However, he had been referring to what Mr.
Dow had mentioned, a well farther to the north on the eastern side of the pond.
Agenda Item #5. Environmental & Readiness Center Update on Information Repositories
Ms. Wadsworth, the public outreach manager for the Environmental & Readiness Center (E&RC),
noted that when the Joint Program Office (JPO) at MMR ceased to exist, the E&RC took over its
information repository project. She explained that the libraries in the four Upper Cape towns had been
housing information repositories for MMR documents, but given the large amount of material being
produced, the librarians became overwhelmed by it. The JPO started the project to help organize the
repositories, and the E&RC continued the project to make the repositories more organized and userfriendly.
Ms. Wadsworth showed some before (disorganized) and after (organized) photos of the
information repository at the Falmouth library.
Ms. Wadsworth noted that some take-away information pieces are being supplied at the repositories,
including a bookmark with instructions on how to obtain access to MMR documents through the
interlibrary loan system, and a bookmark with the E&RC’s website address (which has links to the
other programs’ websites) and contact information for the other programs. She also noted that many
MMR documents are available on line. For example, documents available for review during an open
public comment period can be found on line or at the library. Ms. Wadsworth said that the bookmarks
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 17 OF 18

are quite popular according to the librarians. She also pointed out the poster in the second photo, and
noted that it displays the E&RC’s phone number, an invitation to call that office with any questions,
and contact information for the other MMR programs.
Ms. Wadsworth then announced that on January 31, 2004, the E&RC published its second Annual
State of the Reserve Report, and on March 5, 2004, the report was formally accepted by the
Environmental Management Commission. She noted that the report is available at the information
repositories and on line. She also mentioned that a supplement to the report will be published in a
couple weeks.
Agenda Item #6. PAVE PAWS Update
Lt. Col. Epright of Cape Cod Air Force Station provided the SMB members with copies of the PAVE
PAWS Monthly Update, which is also available at www.pavepaws.org. He then reviewed some
highlights from the document. Lt. Col. Epright noted that the next meeting of the PAVE PAWS
Public Health Steering Group (PPPHSG) is scheduled for April 13, 2004 at the Mashpee Senior
Citizens Center on 500 Great Neck Road North. On the agenda for that meeting are a Broadcast
Signal Labs presentation and a continued discussion about Dr. Albanese’s theories involving slope
differentials. He noted that at the March PPPHSG meting, Broadcast Signal Labs announced that it
had completed its field measurements. He explained that the company had placed a beacon antenna on
the roof of the PAVE PAWS building and measured the signal from over 50 locations across the area
in order to create a map with “some pretty good resolution on it” for the entire Cape. That map will be
matched up with a map that identifies incidences of disease, which is being developed by the
International Epidemiological Institute. The combined map will be submitted to the National Academy
of Sciences and examined for any correlation between signal strength and disease. Lt. Col. Epright
noted that regardless of that correlation, a side benefit of the map is that it will be available for anyone
who wants to look for any type of correlation relating to incidences of disease on Cape Cod.
Lt. Col. Epright also informed the group that at the March PPPHSG meeting a local engineer debated
Dr. Albanese, who spoke by telephone, regarding Dr. Albanese’s slope differential theories. Also, a
local citizen called for additional participation from the nearby communities, a recommendation which
Dr. Price is taking under advisement. Lt. Col. Epright further noted that the quarterly meeting with the
Massachusetts congressional delegation, originally scheduled for March, has been postponed until
April at Dr. Albanese’s request.
Lt. Col. Epright stated that the PAVE PAWS facility’s Service Life Extension Project (SLEP), which
involves equipment updates such as replacing old hard disk drives for which parts are no longer
available with more modern disk drives, has been delayed because of some engineering concerns. He
said that the project is now expected to take place in July, but it’s possible that the SLEP schedule
could slip again.
Lt. Col. Epright also mentioned that Broadcast Signal Labs was seen doing its measurement exercises
at several locations, including Chatham, the old Stone Middle School on the base, and in Plymouth.
That part of the project has been completed, however, and the company will be analyzing its data and
preparing a report for the PPPHSG.
Agenda Item #7. Adjourn
Ms. Valiela noted that the SMB would meet next on May 19, 2004 at a location in Sandwich. She then
adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – MARCH 24, 2004 PAGE 18 OF 18