Senior Management Board, July 23, 2003 - STATES - The National ...

Senior Management Board
Falmouth Holiday Inn
July 23, 2003
6:30 – 8:45 p.m.
Meeting Minutes
Members: Organization: Telephone: E-mail:
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
COL Joseph Materia E&RC 508-509-5755 Joseph.materia@ma.ngb.army.mil
COL Bernie Flynn HQ Camp Edwards 617-413-6175 Bernard.a.flynn@us.army.mil
Mary Sanderson US EPA 617-918-1381 Sanderson.mary@epa.gov
Paul Taurasi MA DEP 508-946-2712 Paul.taurasi@state.ma.us
Dave Williams (sitting in
for Martha Steele)
MDPH/BEHA/EPHC 508-968-4366 Dave.williams@state.ma.us
Mark Harding Mashpee Wampanoag 508-965-0452 Wamp@cape.com
Attendees: Organization: Telephone: E-mail:
Lynda Wadsworth E&RC 508-968-5752
Dr. Sue Goodfellow E&RC 508-968-5141
Hap Gonser IAGWSP 508-968-5107 Kent.gonser@ma.ngb.army.mil
Ben Gregson IAGWSP 508-968-5821 Ben.gregson@ma.ngb.army.mil
Tina Dolen IAGWSP 508-968-5629 Tina.dolen@ma.ngb.army.mil
Robert Gill AFCEE/MMR 508-968-4670 Robert.gill@mmr.brooks.af.mil
Mike Minior AFCEE/MMR 508-968-4670 Mike.minior@mmr.brooks.af.mil
Rose Forbes AFCEE/MMR 508-968-4670
LTC Michael Bennett NGB 703-607-7991 Michael.bennett@ngb.army.mil
LTC Brian Rogers NGB/DA 703-697-2501 Brian.rogers@hqda.army.mil
LTC Dave Cunha HQ Camp Edwards 508-968-5883
Paul Worcester 102 nd FW
COL James M. DePaz USAEC
Bob DeMichele USAEC 410-436-2556 Robert.dimichele@aec.apgea.army.mil
Lt. Col. Dan Epright Cape Cod AFS 508-968-7327 Dan.epright@capecod.af.mil
Bob Cannon USCG 508-968-6487 Rfcannon@d1.uscg.mil
Bob Lim US EPA
Meghan Cassidy US EPA 617-918-1387 Meghan.cassidy@epa.gov
Todd Borci US EPA 617-918-1358
A. Lehmert Cape Cod Times 508-548-9300
Ralph Vaccaro SAC 508-548-2747 Rfvac@aol.com
Martha Vaccaro Citizen 508-548-2747 Mwvaccaro@aol.com
Henry Byers Bourne resident
Jean Crocker STRONG
David Dow Sierra Club 508-540-7142
Mark Hutson Weston Solutions 303-729-6110 Mark.hutson@westonsolutions.com
Euan Reavie Jacobs Engineering 508-564-5746
Jim Quin Ellis Environmental 720-963-9346 James.quin@ellisenv.com
Emily Derbyshire CH2M HILL 508-968-5146 Ederbysh@ch2m.com
Sally Hartmann CH2M HILL 508-968-5145 Shartma2@ch2m.com
Jane Moran CH2M HILL 508-759-9114 Jmoran1@ch2m.com

Handouts Distributed at Meeting:
1. Lease Extension Public Information – web site address
2. Presentation slides: Draft Programmatic Agreement for Cultural Resources at MAARNG Facilities
3. Invitation to comment on the Proposed Programmatic Agreement for Cultural Resources
4. Presentation handout: US Army Environmental Center
5. Presentation handout: Western Boundary
6. Presentation handout: Central Impact Area Update
7. Presentation handout: Landfill 1 2002 Annual Report (August 2001 – July 2002)
8. Map: IRP Plumes and Treatment Systems – January 2003
9. E&RC information piece
Agenda Item #1. Introductions, Approval of March 26, 2003 Meeting Minutes and
Agenda Review
Ms. Valiela convened the meeting at 6:35 p.m. and the Senior Management Board (SMB) members
introduced themselves. Ms. Valiela asked if there were any changes or additions to the May 28, 2003
SMB meeting minutes. No changes were offered and the minutes were approved as written.
Agenda Item #2. Late-Breaking News
No late-breaking news was reported at this time.
Agenda Item #3. SMB/Community News
Public Information on Lease Extension
COL Materia stated that the June 30, 2003 public meeting regarding the base lease extensions was well
attended by members of the public who were able to ask questions of Secretary Flynn from the
Executive Office of Public Safety and Secretary Foy from the Governor’s staff. He also noted that
documents regarding the lease are posted on the Environmental & Readiness Center (E&RC) web site.
Those documents include the proposed lease summaries, a copy of the memorandum of agreement,
and letters from Mr. Fatz of the Department of the Army and Ms. Coates of the Department of the Air
Force regarding commitment on Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) investigation and
cleanup efforts. COL Materia also said that a 30-day public comment period on the proposed leases
began on July 15, 2003 and will run through August 15, 2003. Ms. Valiela added that the e-mail
address for submitting comments is dshaw@massmail.state.ma.us.
Water Supply
Mr. Gill said that the reason he is giving the water supply briefing is because after the Joint Program
Office (JPO), which had served as the “water czar for the military at MMR,” was closed down, he, Mr.
Gonser, and COL Materia decided that the “water czar” role would be taken up by him, as the
Installation Restoration Program (IRP) chief. He also noted that at the round of meetings with the
local water suppliers two months ago, they were informed that he would be their first point of contact
to discuss any issues they want to raise about water supply.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 2 OF 15

Mr. Gill then stated that following the meetings with the water suppliers, the E&RC sent out letters to
each of the four towns, basically summarizing those meetings and inviting the water suppliers to
address any specific concerns to him or Mr. Gonser. He also noted that he sent out letters to each of
the water superintendents stating that the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE)
would stand ready to enter into agreements to compensate for additional water supply costs that could
be attributed to contamination from the base.
Mr. Gill reported that he received a letter from Falmouth’s water superintendent, outlining some
requirements he’d like AFCEE to consider, and a meeting to discuss those issues is scheduled for this
Friday, July 25, 2003. Also, he received a letter from the Bourne Water District water superintendent.
However, most of the issues discussed in that letter pertained to groundwater contamination being
addressed under the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP), and the plan is to continue
discussing those issues at meetings regularly held between the Bourne Water District and the
IAGWSP. Mr. Gill also noted that AFCEE is in the process of closing out an agreement with the
Sandwich Water District to reimburse the town for the cost of a pipeline that was installed in the past.
Questions and Comments from SMB and Public
Ms. Valiela said that the remaining water issues in the four towns that surround the base have been
linked to the lease extensions. She then asked what kind of closure there would be if a town doesn’t
indicate that it has needs before the lease issue has been settled. Mr. Gill replied that AFCEE would
still stand ready to address any requirements that would be raised at any time, regardless of whether
the leases have been extended. He also noted that in past years about $52 million in Air Force and
Army money has been provided to the towns for water system replacements or improvements, without
the motivator of a lease extension. Mr. Gill said that in the future if any of the four towns come
forward with other requirements, they would be reviewed and evaluated in the same way as past
agreements.
Draft MAARNG Programmatic Agreement for Cultural Resources
Dr. Goodfellow stated that cultural resource issues at the MMR and statewide for the Massachusetts
Army National Guard (MAARNG) are governed by two laws: on the state level, Massachusetts
General Laws (MGL), and on the federal level, the National Historic Preservation Act. The
programmatic agreement addresses the regulations under the National Historic Preservation Act and
MGL specifically.
Dr. Goodfellow explained that under current compliance practice, each project is reviewed on a caseby-case
basis with respect to cultural resource issues. For each project, a project notification form is
submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and to the Wampanoag tribe for review
and what is typically a 30-day comment period. The parties can concur with the determinations made
regarding the effects of the project, or they can decide not to concur, in which case the project would
be reevaluated and another review would be required. Dr. Goodfellow stated that the review process
for any average project, regardless of size, could take at least 35 to 40 days, and sometimes longer.
Dr. Goodfellow then noted that a programmatic agreement (PA) is a legally binding agreement signed
by a number of agencies. In this case, the signing agencies would be the MAARNG, the National
Guard Bureau (NGB), the Wampanoag Tribe of Gayhead - Aquinnah, the SHPO, and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), which is the national body. The PA sets forth alternate
procedures for the MAARNG to use to satisfy certain elements of compliance on certain categories of
projects. The PA is not a replacement of all review for cultural resources, and it doesn’t satisfy
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 3 OF 15

compliance under all of the federal laws that exist. Rather, it specifically deals with the National
Historic Preservation Act and the MGL, and only for certain categories of projects. Dr. Goodfellow
also sated that the PA would be signed to govern compliance for MAARNG projects involving historic
properties statewide, not just at MMR.
Dr. Goodfellow explained that from the MAARNG’s perspective, the advantage of implementing a PA
is that it would streamline compliance on certain time-sensitive projects. From the perspective of the
SHPO and the Wampanoag Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), implementing a PA would
save them a lot of paperwork and a lot of time. Dr. Goodfellow noted that, as the Regional Cultural
Resources Manager, she sends the SHPO and THPO an average of 60 or more project notification
forms for review per year. With a PA in place, however, she would be allowed to do a good deal of
review in-house, then summarize the compliance review on an annual basis in an annual report and
meeting.
Dr. Goodfellow stated that the PA would allow her to conduct streamlined, in-house reviews for the
following categories of projects: construction of investigative monitoring wells and soil sampling;
ground disturbance related to soil remediation and/or unexploded ordnance (UXO) investigations;
roadwork along established roads and trails; use of new borrow pits or expansion of existing borrow
pits; construction and maintenance of unpaved parking areas less than five acres in size; new
construction projects at MAARNG facilities involving ground disturbance of areas less than five acres;
and repair or replacement of roofing, windows, doors, electrical, and other systems in historic
buildings, as long as that replacement is done with “in kind” materials. The PA also provides for
certain kinds of undertakings to be entirely exempt from external review. These include: ground
disturbance from training that occurs in previously disturbed areas; actions that take place in areas with
confirmed or documented UXO; regular maintenance of established firebreaks and other easements;
routine facility maintenance; and construction of investigative monitoring wells and/or soil sampling
and UXO investigations in low-sensitivity or disturbed areas.
Dr. Goodfellow explained that with the alternate procedures, if her in-house review of an undertaking
on the list indicates a minimal potential to affect cultural resources, she would approve the project,
keep an in-house record of the compliance review, and include it in a summary in an annual report that
would be submitted to the SHPO, the Wampanoag, the Stockbridge-Munsee, which is the other
federally-recognized tribe in Massachusetts, and other interested parties. If, however, she determined
that there’s potential to impact resources, the undertaking would go beyond the purview of the PA and
would undergo a regular case-by-case review as mandated under state and federal law. Dr.
Goodfellow then mentioned that the annual report format provided in the actual agreement is posted on
the E&RC web site.
Dr. Goodfellow summarized by saying that the PA would let her to look at certain categories of
projects—most importantly, the installation of monitoring wells—so it wouldn’t be necessary to wait
for 30-day reviews by the SHPO and the THPO, thereby allowing the IAGWSP to move ahead more
quickly with some of its investigations. She also noted that the entire PA is provided on the E&RC
web site.
Questions and Comments from SMB and Public
Ms. Valiela asked for confirmation that if Dr. Goodfellow finds a potential impact to a cultural
resource in her review of a project, it would undergo the normal review process. Dr. Goodfellow
confirmed that this is so.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 4 OF 15

Ms. Sanderson asked how the PA would affect the IRP cleanup. Dr. Goodfellow explained that
because the IRP is run by a different agency, it is responsible for its own environmental compliance
actions. However, if the IRP does work on property licensed or owned by the MAARNG, she would
have input into the compliance actions. She noted that in the past she reviewed the IRP’s Chemical
Spill 19 (CS-19) well, which is located in the Impact Area in an area that’s already been documented
as disturbed.
Mr. Harding inquired about the end date of the comment period on the PA. Dr. Goodfellow replied
that comments could be submitted until August 29, 2003. She also noted that if no significant changes
are made to the document after all the comments have been collected, it would be forwarded to the
NGB, the U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC), and the ACHP for signature. If substantive
comments were submitted, however, she would revise the document and put it out for another 30-day
review.
Mr. Dow noted that the lease extensions are defined by the existing leases, yet as of last Friday the
existing leases were not available on the E&RC web site. COL Materia stated that both the Army’s
and Air Force’s existing leases have since been posted on the web site.
Agenda Item #4. Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Updates
U.S. Army Environmental Center
COL De Paz, commander of the USAEC, said that he would be providing an overview of the USAEC
that focuses primarily on its cleanup and restoration work and how that ties in to Camp Edwards at
MMR, rather than its work related to cultural and natural resources. He explained that the USAEC is a
field operating agency under the Department of the Army, specifically the Assistant Chief of Staff for
Installation Management. The intent of the USAEC, as an implementing tool for the Army, is to
promote and provide innovative and cost-effective products and services that support the Army’s
mission and capability to train and to operate, while preserving human health and the environment
COL De Paz then noted that he came to the USAEC as its commander 11 months ago, after three years
at the Pentagon working counter-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. He also noted that he
had technical experts with him in the audience available to answer any questions beyond his
knowledge or experience.
COL De Paz stated that the “Army environmental universe” encompasses more than 16 million acres;
more than 4,000 installations, which include both National Guard armories and reserve facilities; more
than 170 endangered species; more than 100,000 known cultural resources; 10,000 ranges; and 2,500
environmental permits. He said that the USAEC is finding ways for the Army to continue to train
effectively and be ready to fight the nation’s wars, despite the challenges associated with the desert
tortoise at the national training center on the west coast and those associated with the red-cockaded
woodpecker at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
COL De Paz said that in the area of base operations, the USAEC’s goal is to integrate pollution
prevention and compliance to promote the well-being of the installations and the neighboring
communities, and clean up from past practices to return lands to beneficial use. In the area of
sustainable ranges, the goal is to ensure that the Army’s land base is sustainable for solider training,
whether through rotating training areas in order to allow time for the land to recover, or by taking
specific actions, such as replanting or burning, to help the recovery process. In the area of Army
transformation, the USAEC has some involvement in the acquisition process for new weapons systems
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 5 OF 15

and equipment, with the goal of enhancing the Army’s ability to transform and to design and field new
equipment that is environmentally compliant and sustainable.
COL De Paz further noted that in the area of communications and customers, the USAEC’s goal is to
ensure effective communication and fully understand what is needed to maintain the nation’s fighting
force. As a liaison and advocate, the USAEC has four small regional environmental offices: one in
Atlanta, one in Kansas City, one in Denver, and one co-located with USAEC Headquarters at
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Personnel at these regional offices represent the Army’s
interests in developing federal, regional, and state environmental legislation, regulations, and policy.
They work toward finding solutions that satisfy the goals of all parties, at the same time allowing the
Army to train while meeting environmental concerns.
COL De Paz also said that sound business practices are a goal of the USAEC, i.e., making the most of
available resources and dollars, as is workforce excellence, i.e., maintaining a motivated, proactive,
and professional interdisciplinary team to support all of USAEC’s goals and missions across the Army.
He noted that recently there were more than 100 applicants per open position at some of USAEC’s
regional offices, and the USAEC is very selective in hiring individuals who provide the expertise
needed to get the job done.
COL De Paz stated that what is now the USAEC was formed in 1972 as the U.S. Army Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Agency. He also said that the USAEC has been involved in cleanup for the past
28 years of its 30-year history. The USAEC has a long history and a lot of expertise, and is now the
centralized program manager for cleanup Army-wide. COL De Paz further noted that the USAEC
employs 171 Department of Army civilians and five military personnel, as well as more than 200
contractors, with a significant number of these positions applicable to the field of restoration and
cleanup.
COL De Paz also noted that the USAEC works closely with the following military organizations: the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Center for Health Promotion and Preventive
Medicine, the Army Environmental Policy Institute, AFCEE, and the Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center. In addition, the USAEC has seven federal agency partners (the U.S. Geological
Survey, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Natural Resource Conservation
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service). He noted that from these seven
agencies, ten individuals are in effect part of the USAEC staff, which makes for a close working
relationship and the ability to resolve problems together.
COL De Paz then showed a pie chart that illustrated the USAEC’s annual funding by program area,
and noted that approximately $351 million, or nearly 80%, of the budget is spent on restoration and
cleanup. And of that $351 million for this past year, $56 million went toward the cleanup of Camp
Edwards at MMR. COL De Paz also noted that the USAEC contributes 40% of the Air Force’s
cleanup budget.
COL De Paz stated that in December 2002, the USAEC took over as the lead organization representing
the Army at Camp Edwards. However, the mission itself—to protect public health and the
environment by addressing groundwater-related impacts from historical training activities—has not
changed. He also noted that the IAGWSP is in the process of transitioning from the study phase to the
actual cleanup phase, and the USAEC has extensive cleanup experience that can be applied to the
cleanup at Camp Edwards. He further noted that to date, the IAGWSP has installed 700 monitoring
wells at 250 locations and has collected 50,000 soil and water samples for analysis to ensure that the
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 6 OF 15

community is safe. He said that the study phase has been ongoing for six years, and the transition to
the cleanup phase poses some challenges “because the cleanup is something new.” He also noted,
however, that the USAEC is here to clean up, and in the process, to meet both federal and state
standards.
COL De Paz then noted that the USAEC Cleanup Division manages the entire cleanup program for the
Army, including both active and BRAC (base realignment and closure) sites. The Cleanup Division
does technical reviews and quality assurance, and it tracks progress and costs associated with all
ongoing contracts. COL De Paz also mentioned that the Cleanup Division is looking at innovative
ways to conduct more effective cleanups, including guaranteed fixed-price remediations.
COL De Paz stated that the USAEC is currently working at 112 active installations with close to 1,400
sites. In 2002, the USAEC cleaned up or nearly completed cleanup at 173 sites and 12 installations –
seven of which are active, three of which are reserve, and two of which are National Guard
installations. COL De Paz also reported that the USAEC completed a cleanup action at a site in
Sudbury, Massachusetts, the first National Priorities List (NPL) site in Region 1 to be deleted from the
NPL. That site, which was formerly part of Fort Devens, is now part of a 2,200-acre wildlife refuge.
COL De Paz also noted that the USAEC opened the nation’s first standardized UXO demonstration
sites, one at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and the other at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona.
He explained that having two different locations ensures that the potential equipment for UXO
detection is thoroughly tested under varying conditions, including different types of soil, moisture
content, and so forth. The vendors that test their equipment on these ranges are able to prove them out
effectively, and equipment that is proven out can be incorporated and put to use in a rapid fashion at
places like Camp Edwards.
COL De Paz reported that the USAEC received two “Hammer Awards.” One was in recognition of the
USAEC’s participation in developing non-toxic, or “green,” bullets, which consist of a tungsten-nylon
blend core rather than a lead core, and which are used at MMR. The other was in recognition of the
USAEC having integrated liaisons from other agencies to more effectively and efficiently manage
natural and cultural resources. Also, in May of this year, the Nature Conservancy of North Carolina
conferred its North Carolina Conservation Leadership Award on the USAEC and the commander of
Fort Bragg for their contributions to land acquisition and preservation (specifically, the longleaf pine)
as part of the Army’s private lands initiative. COL De Paz also reported that the USAEC’s regional
office in Atlanta recently was awarded a bronze medal from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for the good work being done there.
COL De Paz noted that USAEC leadership includes himself, his deputy, his technical director, and
Hap Gonser, the program manager at the IAGWSP office. COL De Paz mentioned again that there are
still quite a few challenges ahead as the transition to actual cleanup goes forward. He said that the
USAEC has 28 years of cleanup experience, most specifically using the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process; but to his knowledge,
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) has never been used for cleanup, “so we’re having to feel our
way through that, to see how that’s best to do.” COL De Paz also gave his assurance that both state
and federal standards would be met in the cleanup process.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 7 OF 15

Questions and Comments from SMB and Public
Mr. Taurasi thanked COL De Paz for providing an informative presentation, and he remarked that the
USAEC seems like a great organization that’s well staffed and achieving some good results. He also
suggested that COL De Paz consider giving a similar presentation to the Impact Area Review Team
(IART).
Ms. Zuern inquired about environmental programs that exist at United States bases located overseas.
COL De Paz replied that USAEC staff does not work overseas; however, there are military personnel
who work environmental issues there, and once a year the USAEC meets with that group.
Ms. Sanderson referred to the pie chart and inquired about the abbreviation “MMRP.” COL De Paz
replied that MMRP stands for Military Munitions Response Plan. Ms. Sanderson also asked COL De
Paz to confirm the total budget for MMR. COL De Paz confirmed that $56 million of the total
restoration budget for fiscal year 2003 (FY’03) goes to MMR.
Ms. Sanderson also asked if COL De Paz is contemplating guaranteed fixed-price contract work at
MMR. COL De Paz replied that the USAEC’s goal this year was to try out guaranteed fixed-price
contracting at seven different installations, but MMR was not one of those seven. Ms. Sanderson said
that she would encourage the USAEC to engage in dialogue with the regulators early on should
consideration be given to pursuing guaranteed fixed-price contracting at MMR. She said that the
regulators have learned a lot from their experience in this arena and would be able to share some
lessons learned.
Ms. Sanderson also said that she feels confident that the USAEC will find a way to work cleanup
under the SDWA. She acknowledged that there’s been some tension with regard to the authority
question, and noted that she’d like the USAEC “to be about good technology” and innovative
restoration work like that seen at other bases. COL De Paz stated that conducting the cleanup under
CERCLA would alleviate a lot of concerns and provide resources more easily, while conducting
cleanup under the SDWA is something new that will propose some challenges.
Mr. Pannorfi inquired about similar organizations for other branches of the service. COL De Paz
replied that the similar organization for the Air Force is AFCEE, and for the Navy is the Naval
Facilities Engineering Service Center. He also noted that the USAEC meets with these organizations
on a quarterly basis. Mr. Pannorfi also asked whether use of the two technology demonstration sites is
a prerequisite for a vendor that wants to do business with the military. COL De Paz replied that use of
the demonstration sites at Aberdeen Proving Ground and Yuma Proving Ground is not a prerequisite,
but the facilities do provide vendors with an opportunity to “test and show their wares.”
Ms. Valiela asked whether all or most of MMR’s $56 million for FY’03 has been committed. Mr.
Gonser replied that most of that amount has been committed up to this point. However, the IAGWSP
is currently working toward finalizing several major rapid response projects, each in the $2 million
range. Those projects are being undertaken at Demolition Area 1, at the Southeast Ranges, and at the
Central Impact Area. Ms. Valiela suggested that perhaps roughly $8 million of the $56 million has not
yet been committed. Mr. Gonser agreed.
Ms. Valiela questioned whether the holdup in committing that outstanding amount is in any way
connected to the fact that the work is being under the SDWA. Mr. Gonser replied that whether the
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 8 OF 15

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) applies to the work to be done at Demolition Area
1 has been issue, whereas under CERCLA there would be a RCRA exemption. He said that in
response to EPA’s direction that the IAGWSP needs to determine if RCRA applies, a legal analysis
was done and was just recently sent back to EPA. Mr. Gonser also noted, however, that this issue
hadn’t necessarily stopped other tasks associated with Demolition Area 1 work from going forward,
such as contracting. Rather, it just added extra administrative workload. He further noted that he
believes that the analysis concluded that the waste would not be a RCRA waste, and so the IAGWSP
wouldn’t have to go through the full permitting process to handle the material as such.
Ms. Sanderson stated that under CERCLA all of the substantive requirements of the other regulations
would have to be met, but not the final paperwork permitting piece. Ms. Cassidy said that the question
of whether Demolition Area 1 soils were RCRA characteristic would have to be answered regardless
of whether the cleanup work were being done under CERCLA or the SDWA because, even under
CERCLA, there has to be compliance with the substantive portions of laws. She also said that the
initial issue was that the question hadn’t even been raised in relation to the plan to treat the soils, and
added that the work that’s been done to date regarding the issue of RCRA characteristic waste—
primarily on explosive soils—would have come up regardless of the regulatory program.
Ms. Valiela said that there’s no doubt that the Army has done an enormous amount of work to find and
characterize environmental impacts in the Camp Edwards area. However, the more difficult
undertaking is going to be the actual cleanup, which she believes will require real leadership from the
USAEC in terms of developing “a way to make things work, to find the way forward.” She said that
EPA has been very consistent in its position on using the SDWA. She also said that it would be easy
to use the excuse of saying “it’s not the normal” for not resolving the issues. Ms. Valiela said that she
strongly encourages COL De Paz and his staff to focus on this as a technical problem and to solve it in
a technical fashion. She then mentioned that cost and efficiency also could be used as an excuse to
“just sort of stonewall.”
COL De Paz noted that since 1997 the Army’s annual budget for the investigation and cleanup at
MMR has grown from about $5 million to $56 million, with a total expenditure of about $150 million
over the years. Now, the study is behind, a new phase is being entered, “and there are going to be
challenges with that, and we’re trying to work through them.”
Ms. Valiela also requested that the USAEC provide an organizational chart that shows in some detail
how the cleanup management team is structured. She said that it would be helpful to know who all the
players are, how they relate to each other, whether there’s any contact between the USAEC and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and EPA, or whether that kind of
contact occurs just on the project manager level. COL De Paz agreed to provide such a chart, and he
noted that he does communicate with the regulators.
Mr. Dow referred to the Defense Authorization Act and said that it’s his understanding that instead of
designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the military wants to use the
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) program to protect the habitat of
endangered or threatened species. He said that although this program has done an excellent job of
protecting the habitat for state-listed species at MMR, he wants to know how it would change should
the military take over the ESA habitat protection role under the INRMP program. LTC Rogers, who
works for Mr. Fatz, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, replied that the military would not be
taking over the designation of critical habitat. Rather, the legislation would put into law the current
method that the Army has been using with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), such that the
USFWS would still be reviewing all INRMPs to ensure that those plans, once completed, would
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 9 OF 15

sufficiently protect any species on an installation. Once the USFWS is assured of that process, it can
state that the INRMP is adequately protecting the species and there’s no need to designate critical
habitats. LTC Rogers said that this role would not be taken away from the USFWS.
Mr. Dow also noted that it’s his understanding that the House/Senate conference committee is
proposing to introduce the RCRA and CERCLA changes proposed by the Pentagon, and he asked
what kind of implications this would have for the IRP cleanup at MMR. LTC Rogers replied that the
RCRA and CERCLA changes that have been requested would simply put into place standard operating
procedures that the military and the regulators have been working with over the past several years with
respect to military munitions. He said that the military is asking that munitions used on the range not
be considered solid waste under RCRA or hazardous waste under CERCLA, as long as they remain on
the range. If they migrate off the range, however, the military would have to take a corrective action.
Mr. Dow inquired about perchlorate, which he understands EPA has not designated a hazardous waste.
LTC Rogers replied that the legislation also states that the military would need to address a situation
where an imminent and substantial endangerment is shown to exist. He said, “We’re already at that
point here at MMR, so this legislation is not going to have any effect as far as MMR goes.”
Ms. Crocker asked if it’s correct that cleanup money for Camp Edwards is no longer being taken out of
funds designated for training. COL De Paz replied that this is correct. Ms. Crocker also asked whether
“green ammo” is effective and accurate, and noted that she’s heard reports to the contrary from
soldiers. She also said that she’d heard that it “wears the guns out faster.” COL De Paz assured Ms.
Crocker that testing has demonstrated that “green ammo” is effective and accurate. He also noted that
while the core of the green bullets is made of a tungsten-nylon blend, the bullets are still coated with
copper, and so wouldn’t effect the guns any differently than conventional bullets.
Ms. Crocker also noted that the Save Our Reservation and the National Guard (STRONG) taskforce,
which she co-founded, strongly recommends that the Camp Edwards cleanup be conducted under
CERCLA. She said that she has a long list of reasons for doing the work under CERCLA and would
like to send this list to COL De Paz’s office. COL De Paz said that she is welcome to do so. Ms.
Crocker then said that she thinks that EPA has been inconsistent, “quite arbitrary,” and “hot under the
collar” at IART meetings, and she sees “better cooperation between and among the regulators” in
terms of the Plume Cleanup Team (PCT), of which she is a member, and the IRP cleanup effort being
conducted under CERCLA.
Ms. Valiela thanked COL De Paz for coming to the meeting, and said that the SMB looks forward to
working with him.
Western Boundary Area
Mr. Gregson showed a map of the Monument Beach wellfield area and pointed out public supply wells
#1, #6, #3, and #4. He then reported that on July 1, 2003, following 66 sampling events, perchlorate
was detected in well #1 for the first time, at a concentration of 0.37 parts per billion (ppb). He said that
the IAGWSP immediately notified the Bourne Water District of the finding and then collected two
confirmatory samples, both of which tested nondetect for perchlorate at two different laboratories.
Since then, three more weekly samples have been collected from that well, all of which also tested
nondetect for perchlorate. He also noted that well #6 has tested nondetect since October 2002, and
wells #3 and #4 have tested nondetect since December 2002. He further noted that most of the
perchlorate detections in monitoring wells west of the base boundary, in the wellfield itself, have been
at concentrations less than 1 ppb, and typically less than 0.5 ppb. Also, detections on the base that are
above 1 ppb are typically less than 2 ppb.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 10 OF 15

Mr. Gregson also reported that perchlorate was detected in a new well at the northern edge of the area
of contamination, at a concentration of about 2.9 ppb. He noted that additional monitoring wells are
being drilled, and contingency drilling locations are planned to map out the extent of this more recent
perchlorate detection.
Questions and Comments from SMB and Public
Mr. Williams said that he believes that at last night’s IART meeting, Ralph Marks of the Bourne Water
District reported that well #6 is currently operating. Mr. Gregson replied that he’s not sure if that was
reported, but he does know that the Bourne Water District board was considering using that well given
that it has tested nondetect for almost a year.
Central Impact Area
Mr. Gregson stated that investigation of the Central Impact Area began in 1997. Soil contaminants
identified in the Central Impact Area are Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX), High Melting Explosive
(HMX), pentaerythitol tetranitrate (PETN), perchlorate, trinitrotoluene (TNT), and TNT breakdown
products. In groundwater, the contaminants are RDX, 4A-dinitrotoluene (4A-DNT), HMX, and
perchlorate. RDX and perchlorate levels in the Central Impact Area are typically less than those seen
at Demolition Area 1 or the Southeast Ranges. For example, the maximum RDX detection at the
Central Impact Area is 15 ppb and the maximum perchlorate detection is 5 ppb, while at Demolition
Area 1 the maximum RDX detection is in the 300-ppb range and perchlorate was recently detected
near the source area at 500 ppb. Mr. Gregson noted that the Central Impact Area RDX and perchlorate
plumes originate from the central target area and migrate off toward the northwest.
Mr. Gregson showed a recently updated map of the RDX plume, noted that the source area is 300 to
400 acres in size, and pointed out the multiple fingers of RDX contamination in groundwater, which
are based on the different source locations. He also pointed out the location of the CS-19 plume,
which is being addressed by the IRP. He further noted that the map focuses on the central part of the
Impact Area, at the intersection of Turpentine Road and Tank Alley, where most of the targets were
located. He also pointed out the nondetect contour, the 2-ppb (or health advisory) contour, and the 10ppb
contour.
Mr. Gregson also showed the recently updated map of the perchlorate plume, and pointed out the
nondetect contour, the 1-ppb contour, and the 4-ppb contour. He noted that the extent of perchlorate
migration appears to be somewhat less than the RDX migration, which is believed to be a function of
the timing of the release. He also stated that at this point the IAGWSP believes that the RDX and
perchlorate contamination have been defined sufficiently such that it’s possible to move forward with
a feasibility study and begin looking at cleanup alternatives.
Mr. Gregson stated that the IAGWSP has proposed to conduct a focused investigation of two target
locations in the Central Impact Area in order to gain additional information before moving forward
with soil removal activities there. The investigation includes additional soil sampling, UXO surveys to
look at ordnance types and distributions, and the installation of lysimeters, which are small devices
used to collect samples of rainwater as it infiltrates through the contaminated surface soil and leaches
contaminants deeper into the vadose zone soil. Mr. Gregson said that the investigation would aid with
the design and evaluation of cleanup alternatives to be conducted and proposed under interim actions.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 11 OF 15

Mr. Gregson also stated that the remedial investigation reports for both soil and groundwater are
scheduled to be finalized this fall, with soil removal occurring next in spring 2004. At the same time,
however, the IAGWSP will be continuing the feasibility study process for both soil and groundwater
in the Central Impact Area.
Questions and Comments from SMB and Public
Ms. Valiela asked whether the RDX and perchlorate contamination exist at the same depth in the
aquifer. Mr. Gregson replied that they are moving through the groundwater at roughly the same depth.
Ms. Valiela asked if it would be correct then to presume that an extraction system would capture both
the perchlorate and the RDX. Mr. Gregson replied that this is correct, to the extent that both
contaminants are present, and he again noted that the perchlorate hasn’t migrated as far the RDX.
Agenda Item #5. Installation Restoration Program Updates
LF-1 Annual Report
Ms. Forbes said that her presentation pertains to the Landfill 1 (LF-1) Annual Report, August 2001
through July 2002, which is produced under the IRP’s System Performance and Ecological Impact
Monitoring (SPEIM) program.
Ms. Forbes showed a map of the LF-1 plume and pointed out the source area; the northern, southern,
and central plume lobes; the base boundary; Routes 28 and 28A; Red Brook Harbor; and Squeteague
Harbor. She noted that the northern lobe discharges into Red Brook Harbor, and the southern lobe is
heading toward Squeteague Harbor. She also reported that the three contaminants of concern (COCs)
in the LF-1 plume are perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and carbon tetrachloride
(CCl4), and the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for each of the COCs is 5 ppb. Ms. Forbes further
noted that monitoring wells shown in red on the map represent above-MCL detections of any COC.
while yellow represents detections below the MCL, and green represents nondetects.
Ms. Forbes noted that the main base landfill, which is the plume’s source area, was made up of six
landfill cells, three of which have been capped. She said that the IRP does vapor probe monitoring for
gases at the perimeters of the landfill, and those monitoring sites are designated on the map with the
letters “VP.” Ms. Forbes reported that with the exception of elevated concentrations at three VPs
located in the northeast corner of the post-1970 landfill cell, all the VP locations measure methane gas
at safe levels. She also said that groundwater monitoring to track contamination coming from the
landfill has yielded no MCL exceedances over the past year, and it appears that the plume has detached
from its source. She noted that this is a strong indicator that the landfill caps are working as intended,
to prevent infiltration that would create more contamination.
Ms. Forbes then showed a cross-section figure that runs through the northern lobe of the plume, and
shows TCE contamination. She pointed out that the northern lobe, where minimum biodegradation is
occurring, actually is made up of two lobes at two different depths and appears to be detached from the
source area. She also pointed out the ground surface; the water table, which runs about 60 feet mean
sea level (msl) down to zero feet msl; the shallow lobe, which is being captured by extraction well 5
(EW-5), and where the highest TCE concentration is about 30 ppb; and the deeper lobe, which is
downgradient of EW-5, and which eventually will discharge into Red Brook Harbor.
Ms. Forbes showed another cross-section, which runs through the central plume lobe, and shows PCE
contamination. She noted that there is less PCE mass in the central lobe than originally predicted, and
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 12 OF 15

that mass has fragmented into plumelets downgradient of the extraction system. She also said that PCE
concentrations around the MCL are expected to persist in the aquifer between the base boundary and
Route 28 for more than 20 years, which is significant as it relates to the existing goal of the system,
which she would discuss in more detail later. Ms. Forbes also said that, as intended, the infiltration
system is pushing the central lobe deeper and slightly northward, away from downgradient Bourne
public water supply wells. She then showed another cross-section for PCE, and pointed out that the
contamination is being pushed deeper by the infiltration system. She also pointed out Bourne public
water supply wells #2 and #5, and noted that some PCE has been detected there, but at concentrations
well below MCL.
Ms. Forbes continued by showing a cross-section that depicts the southern lobe, which she described
as the most complicated lobe, with the highest concentrations, and all three COCs. She also noted that,
as evidenced by the presence of biodegradation products, quite a bit of biodegradation is occurring in
this lobe. She then stated that the goal of the LF-1 plume treatment system is not containment at the
base boundary; rather, the goal is to reduce contaminant concentrations between the base boundary and
Route 28 to below MCL within 20 years. She said that this is not happening at two areas of the plume,
one of which is in the southern lobe.
Ms. Forbes again referred to the cross-section figure and pointed out the PCE contamination in the
southern lobe, where, she noted, the highest concentrations are roughly 20 to 30 ppb. She said that
some of that contamination is being captured by the four extraction wells in the southern lobe. Ms.
Forbes then showed another cross-section figure and pointed out that TCE is more widespread in the
southern lobe, where the highest TCE concentrations in the plume, which range from 90 to 100 ppb,
are found. She also noted, however, that the TCE is upgradient of the extraction wells and
concentrations are expected to be reduced through biodegradation mechanisms as they migrate. She
further noted that generally the TCE concentrations are about 20 to 30 ppb. Ms. Forbes then showed a
cross-section figure for CCl4, and noted that for the most part, this contaminant exists only in the
southern lobe. She also said that the highest CCl4 concentration is about 25 ppb; however, the
contaminant is not very widespread in the southern lobe.
Ms. Forbes continued by showing a three-panel slide entitled “Temporal Changes in PCE
Concentrations at LF-1,” which shows how the plume was mapped in 1999, in 2000/2001, and in
2001/2002. She noted that the area depicted in blue represents PCE concentrations of 5 to 10 ppb, and
pointed out that while that area has decreased over time, a portion of the contamination has traveled
beyond the southernmost extraction well, EW-2, and will not be captured, but will persist in the
aquifer beyond the cleanup goal timeframe.
Ms. Forbes then reported that from startup in August 1999 through April 2003, the LF-1 plume system
has treated over one billion gallons of water and removed 226 pounds of solvents, of which 153
pounds were COCs. The remaining contaminants that were removed, such as cis-1,2-dichloroethene
(cis-1,2-DCE), make up substantial mass in the plume but are not considered COCs. Ms. Forbes also
noted that the influent concentrations of COCs generally range at about the MCL, with influent
concentrations of CCl4 being a bit lower. She further noted that the treatment system has been
operating at or near the design rate, with periodic maintenance activities and carbon exchanges. Also,
during a system optimization effort in April 2003, some flow rates were changed and some extraction
well screens were “packered off” to focus stress on areas of higher contamination levels.
Ms. Forbes stated that next steps include: continued monitoring of the LF-1 plume; monitoring of
wells associated with CS-23, a new plume that’s in close proximity to the LF-1 plume, to determine
how potential future actions might affect that plume; revisiting the goal for the LF-1 plume early on in
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 13 OF 15

the Interim Record of Decision (IROD) to Record of Decision (ROD) process; and making a
technically sound decision for future actions.
Questions and Comments from SMB and Public
Mr. Taurasi stated that DEP’s technical experts are of the opinion that the southern lobe is not being
captured properly, and that additional work should be done to capture that contamination sooner rather
than later.
Ms. Sanderson inquired about the schedule for a ROD for the LF-1 plume. Mr. Gill replied that he
doesn’t know that the final ROD date has been established yet. However, the work to begin the first
steps is under contract, and one of the first steps will be to finalize the schedule.
Ms. Zuern expressed some concern that if Bourne wells #2 and #5 were pumping at full capacity they
might draw the plume up into them. Ms. Forbes replied that the IRP had modeled a scenario with
100% pumping capacity for those wells, which indicated that the most PCE the wells would pull in
was 2 ppb, which is well below the MCL. She explained that increasing pumping would also mean
pulling in a lot of clean water, especially because the infiltration system is flooding areas with clean
water. Ms. Forbes further noted that there are six sentry wells associated with the supply wells; three
are monitored monthly and three are monitored on a quarterly basis. In addition, the Bourne Water
District also does its own sampling.
Ms. Valiela said that she’s pleased that the landfill cap is working. She also noted that with respect to
biodegradation, it appears that the more conservative stance was the right decision.
Ms. Sanderson said that she’d thought that a carbon filtration system was installed on the
Coonamessett water supply well as insurance that that supply would be protected from the Fuel Spill
28 (FS-28) plume. Mr. Gill confirmed that this is so. He also noted that the IRP entered into an
agreement to provide money to the Bourne Water District to either replace wells #2 and #5, or to put
carbon systems on those wells. He said that the Bourne Water District is weighing some different
options and has not yet selected its course of action.
CS-4, CS-20, CS-21, and FS-29 Access
Mr. Gill stated that in 2000 AFCEE and EPA, with concurrence from DEP, signed a ROD to put
carbon treatment systems on the CS-4, CS-20, CS-21, and FS-29 plumes, which are located in North
Falmouth. He reported that at the end of this week the IRP is going to submit the well locations for the
CS-21 and FS-29 cleanup systems. The submittal of well locations for CS-4 and CS-20, however, is
being delayed because some of the proposed extraction and reinjection well locations are on private
property, and more time is needed to get feedback from the property owners. Mr. Gill noted that
tonight members of his staff are attending a Falmouth Conservation Commission because one of the
wells would be located on conservation property. He said that this is just one in a series of meetings
with groups and individuals in the community who would be affected by the project, and he noted that
nearly two dozen residents from that area attended a recent PCT meeting to express their concerns.
Mr. Gill stated that the IRP is working through these issues with the residents, and over the next few
months expects to be working with the USACE to apply for easements that would allow the systems to
be built.
Mr. Gill also reported that the IRP is having dialogue with the Town of Falmouth regarding locating
the FS-29/CS-21 treatment plant on a town-owned parcel south of Route 151, and this topic is slated to
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 14 OF 15

e on the agenda for the August 11, 2003 Falmouth selectmen’s meeting. He further noted that the
IRP is working closely with the Crane Wildlife Management Area, which is managed by the
Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, regarding the kind of easement and
compensation that would be needed to locate a number of wells and a treatment plant on that property.
Questions and Comments from SMB and Public
Mr. Pannorfi asked if it’s correct that the locations of the CS-21 and FS-29 wells and treatment plant
have been determined. Mr. Gill replied that while that agreement hasn’t actually been settled, there’s
been substantial agreement about those locations, and it’s now just a matter of submitting the
document to the regulators, which will happen at the end of this week.
FS-1 Treatment Plant Reconstruction
Mr. Gill stated that the FS-1 treatment plant burned down in October 2002 and is under contract to be
rebuilt with an expected completion date of October 2003. He noted that the foundation of the old
plant is being reused and expanded. He then showed several photographs of the new carbon vessels
being delivered and erected on the existing foundation, which, he explained, had to be expanded to
accommodate a third vessel that’s expected to save money in carbon change-outs. Mr. Gill also
reported that all the new plumbing has been installed at the plant and all three carbon vessels are now
in place. Work to erect the steel covering over the plant has begun, after which the final electrical work
can be done. Mr. Gill stated the project is moving along on schedule.
Mr. Gill also noted that when the treatment plant starts up in October, it will be treating groundwater
from four extraction wells, as part of the FS-1 ROD. At the time the plant burned down, it was
treating groundwater from one deep extraction well and a number of shallow well-points.
Announcement of Interim Remedial Project Manager
Mr. Gill announced that Jon Davis, who has been with AFCEE at MMR since 1996, has been named
as his interim replacement while he attends ten months of War College beginning August 4, 2003. He
noted that Mr. Davis, who has worked a lot of budget and program issues, and plume cleanup issues as
well, will be receiving support from other IRP staff members such as Ms. Forbes and Mr. Minior. Mr.
Gill said that it’s been a pleasure working with the SMB on the IRP cleanup project and he looks
forward to returning in 10 months.
Ms. Valiela remarked that Mr. Gill is an excellent program manager who deals with issues
thoughtfully and makes her community feel comfortable in continuing to work to solve problems. She
said that she is sure that Mr. Davis will do a fine job, but she also looks forward to Mr. Gill’s return.
Agenda Item #6. SMB Meeting and Adjourn
Ms. Valiela noted that the SMB would meet next on Wednesday, September 24, 2003. She then
adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING – JULY 23, 2003 PAGE 15 OF 15