FS-1 Quashnet River Stakeholder Summit
September 10, 1998
Mashpee Town Hall
9:00 AM - 3:00 PM
Meeting Minutes

Agenda Item #1. Introductions

Mr. Sobel explained that the purpose of the meeting was for the Air Force to present the various alternatives to separate the cranberry bogs from the Quashnet River and to hear the concerns and questions of the stakeholders with respect to those alternatives. He then asked the attendees to introduce themselves.

Mr. Sobel reviewed the agenda. He asked that the attendees only ask clarification questions during the presentations and reserve comments until the completion of the presentations. He also informed the group of the meeting groundrules: to wait to be recognized before speaking; to not interrupt others; to stay focused on the issues at hand; to not engage in personal attacks.

Agenda Item #2. Background Information/Schedule

Ms. Balkus stated that she was with the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) in San Antonio, Texas. She said that she was here to integrate all of the issues related to the cranberry bogs on both the Coonamessett River and the Quashnet River that were associated with the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) fuel spill sites, Fuel Spill-1 (FS-1) and FS-28. She noted that today she would be discussing FS-1 and the Quashnet River.

Ms. Balkus also mentioned that she has been here on site working on these issues since the latter part of June. She noted that her first task had been to identify who the stakeholders were; her second task had been to identify the concerns and issues of those stakeholders; and her third task had been to put all these issues and concerns into a "neat little package" of how to move forward and resolve them. However, this had not turned out to be neat and easy.

Ms. Balkus noted that many people other than herself have been working on the cranberry issues. She said that Mr. Tom Szymoniak from Jacobs Engineering, who was due to arrive shortly, was a very instrumental player and had been working on this issue over the past two years. She noted that Mr. Don Schall from ENSR was critically involved as well. Ms. Balkus also gratefully acknowledged the staffs of the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), Operational Technologies (OpTech) and CH2M Hill who had been instrumental in setting things up.

Ms. Balkus stated that the purpose of this summit was to present the alternatives to the stakeholders and to provide an opportunity to the stakeholders to offer feedback on the alternatives. She noted that one goal of this meeting was to determine which alternative might best meet the individual stakeholders’ interests and to determine how to resolve conflicting interests. Another goal was reach a consensus agreement by next Wednesday, September 16th.

Mr. Balkus noted that there were 55 different stakeholders from 20 different organizations involved in both of the sites. These included the Town of Mashpee, Senator Kerry’s office, Senator Kennedy’s office, Representative Delahunt’s office, the Cape Cod Commission (CCC), the Cape Cod Cranberry Growers Association (CCCGA), the individual cranberry growers, Ocean Spray, the University of Massachusetts (U Mass) Cranberry Experiment Station, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP), the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH), the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, the Division of Marine Fisheries, the Food and Agriculture Department, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), and, of course, the Air Force and other players from the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR).

Ms. Balkus then reviewed some of the issues that had been previously raised. She noted that the Town of Mashpee had significant concerns about maintaining and improving the herring runs and the trout habitats; it was also interested in long-term remedial solutions and moving forward on schedule. The Town of Mashpee was also concerned with on-going maintenance of the bogs and the consideration of wetland mitigation.

Ms. Balkus noted that: the cranberry growers were willing to work with the towns; they wanted a win-win situation for everyone; they wanted to understand what they needed to do to maintain the bogs; they wanted to be kept informed on the issues relating to them; and they wanted to have a clean water supply for their bogs in order to continue operations.

Ms. Balkus then reviewed the Commonwealth’s stakeholder issues which included the on-going maintenance of the bogs, what would be done with the wetlands, the herring runs and brook trout habitats, how treated water might be addressed, possible construction impacts, air quality, flood storage, long-term outcomes, the timing of the construction season as it relates to the herring run and trout spawning seasons, fish health, potential loss of cranberry acreage, permitting requirements, and legal authority.

Ms. Balkus noted that the US EPA was interested in assurance that the Air Force would look at an alternatives analysis. The US EPA also wanted the Air Force to fully characterize the FS-1 plume; to evaluate the impacts on the aquatic habitat; to meet the water quality standards; to look at the long-term effects; and to have a contingency plan. The US EPA was also concerned with permitting and legal authority issues.

Ms. Balkus reported that the MMR was interested in making sure that it implemented a corrective action that would resolve the issues at hand by the year 2000. She explained that legislative authority had only been authorized by Congress for this year and next year. She also stated that the MMR definitely wanted to be protective of human health and the environment and added that this was the whole driver behind the project. Other interests of the MMR were to come up with a cost effective remedy and a win-win situation for everyone.

Ms. Balkus remarked that this was quite a huge balancing act and noted that the major issues in common with all of the interests were: the wetlands issues, the fisheries issues, the impact on the cranberry industry, the timing and cost for the alternatives, how risk would be balanced or mitigated, and the possible impacts on the community. She asked that each attendee try to think of not only his or her own issues, but of those issues of concern to those sitting nearby. She also mentioned that this meeting was an opportunity for everyone to provide feedback as to whether or not his or her own issues have been addressed.

Ms. Balkus stated that the answer to the question "Where do we go from here?" could be boiled down to three options. The first option was to ignore the problem and pretend that it would go away. The second option was to gather more information and try to evaluate more alternatives. The third option was to attempt to reach a compromise, talk about the alternatives being considered, decide what was good and bad about the alternatives, make a decision and implement it as soon as possible. Ms. Balkus said that her goal today was to get somewhere between the second and third option.

Ms. Balkus proceeded with the presentation by reviewing the investigation data. She explained that she herself was not an expert in this area, however she would continue until Mr. Szymoniak, who was running late, arrived to take over this portion of the presentation.

Ms. Balkus reviewed the on-going efforts at FS-1. She explained that the "Compensation" effort was the legislative authority from Congress that allowed the Air Force to compensate the growers for the crops that they had been asked not to produce. This authority provided the means and the mechanism to compensate both the growers and the Town of Mashpee. Ms. Balkus noted that the negative easements were currently being negotiated and it was hoped that this would be resolved and the funds would be obligated by the end of September and that payment would be made between October and December of this year and between October and December of next year. She explained that it depended on the negotiations as to whether there would be a one-payment or two-payment agreement.

Ms. Balkus then reported on the "Cranberry Protocol & Testing" on-going effort. She said that a technical working group had convened to discuss the best way to come up with a cranberry testing protocol that would represent everyone’s interests. That group had determined a protocol that meets the food and drug methodology for food safety. She noted that samples would be taken this afternoon and the cranberries would be sent to a laboratory to be tested. Samples would be taken at the Flax Pond bogs in order to confirm that they were clean, as a test method for the protocol to confirm that it did work. Samples would also be taken at the Quashnet bogs for comparison purposes, to establish a baseline.

Ms. Balkus noted that the "Surface Water Sampling" effort was currently on-going. She said that monthly samples were being taken at various locations, primarily to manage human health risk by making sure that no one was being exposed to any dangerous levels of concentrations. She noted that the sampling was conducted at the inflow and outflow of each bog and mentioned that later she would show the group a few more locations that the Air Force wanted to add because it felt that they would be more representative.

Ms. Balkus then discussed the FS-1 "Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study" (RI/FS) effort which, she explained, was a CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) investigation. She noted that the FS-1 draft remedial investigation report was submitted in July of 1998 and that the Air Force was currently working to resolve some of the regulatory agency comments on the report. She reminded the group that this was the mechanism by which the Air Force would do site cleanup and plume cleanup. She added that the risks to receptors would be addressed through this process, not through what would be discussed today.

Ms. Balkus spoke about the "Kansas State University (KSU) Studies" on-going effort. She noted that researchers at KSU had been brought on to determine whether ethylene dibromide (EDB) could in fact get into the cranberry fruit and/or the plants. One study would look at cranberries in various concentrations of EDB in water to see if EDB could get into the fruit itself. The second study would look at the growth of a cranberry plant vine in a controlled environment to determine if a plant grown in groundwater containing EDB could uptake the EDB and translocate it into the fruit itself. She noted that it was hoped that data from the first study would be back by December or January. She also noted that the preliminary data from the second study was expected in a year, however the study would not be completed until the year 2000.

Ms. Balkus stated that the sixth on-going effort at FS-1 was the "Bog/River Diversion Concept Development", which would be discussed today. She then showed an FS-1 Timeline slide and said that the surface water testing was being done monthly. She noted that the RI had been submitted and that the FS was in the early stages of development. She said that samples were to be collected this afternoon for the cranberry testing and mentioned that some of this information would be used to determine how to dispose of the berries that were grown this year. She noted that the prevention of growth had been somewhat unsuccessful, especially at the Coonamessett bogs. Ms. Balkus also pointed out where the KSU studies fell on the timeline. She mentioned again that the legislative authority for compensation was only for 1998 and 1999.

Ms. Balkus stated that the present goal was to reach a decision on an alternative this month so that the engineering of the alternative could begin in October and construction could begin in November, to be completed by March. It was hoped that when the time had run out on the legislative authority to compensate the growers, the problem would be corrected and the cranberry crops could be brought back into production; this was the driver behind the timing. She asked the group to keep in mind while reviewing the alternatives that a need to collect additional data for any given alternative would impact this time frame.

Ms. Balkus also noted the goal to meet next Wednesday, September 16, 1998 to try to reach consensus. She also mentioned that the Town of Falmouth had expressed an interest in postponing this meeting until September 21, 1998 so that it could first hold a public meeting. She explained that the decision on the next meeting date would be further discussed this afternoon.

Mr. Whritenour said that he had some serious concerns with respect to the timing and what was actually happening with the negotiation of the so-called negative easement agreement and also with the discussion of compensation. He reported that Mr. Ray Cottengaim of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), who had been working on this project, had visited him at his office last week and had provided some information that he (Mr. Whritenour) had found to be confusing and distressing. He said that Mr. Cottengaim had indicated that the deadline for having the negative easement agreement negotiated was September 30, 1998 and had also indicated a number of steps that had to happen in order for this deadline to be met. Mr. Sobel asked Ms. Balkus if she was comfortable with addressing Mr. Whritenour’s comments at this time. Ms. Balkus replied that she was willing to provide a brief response now, and would address Mr. Whritenour’s concerns in greater detail later, off-line, if warranted.

Mr. Whritenour then noted that he had not to date seen that easement agreement. Since the deadline for that was coming up within the next couple of weeks and it appeared that the whole concept of how this would work was still sketchy, he would have expected to have been working on this quite some time ago.

On the compensation question, Mr. Whritenour stated that he had received a somewhat vague oral report on the results of the appraisal process for the cranberry bogs. He said there seemed to be a lot of confusion and explained that he had spoken briefly with Mr. Brian Handy, the manager of the town bogs who had had a similar meeting with Mr. Cottengaim. From this conversation with Mr. Handy he had learned that his own understanding of the figures differed from that of Mr. Handy.

Mr. Whritenour also noted that he had specifically been refused a copy of the appraisal report. Yet at this point he was being told that if the appraisal report was not accepted and signed by September 30, 1998, the money would be lost. He said that this was distressing to him and caused him to wonder if he should hire his own appraiser and get into an adversarial position. He asked that his concern be documented and he requested a copy of the appraisal report so that he could have the chance to have a discussion about the report with a knowledgeable party. He felt that if he understood the report he could accept it better and not feel the need to re-create it. He noted that September 30 was the next date in this process, which did not appear to be off to a very good start.

Ms. Balkus noted that Mr. Whritenour’s concerns would be documented. She also said that she would be happy to have a discussion with him off-line. Ms. Balkus then agreed to provide a brief answer because, although Mr. Whritenour’s concern did not fit with the focus of the meeting, he had raised a very important issue. Mr. Sobel noted that Mr. Whritenour’s concerns and his specific request to see the appraisal report would be conveyed to Mr. Jim Snyder at the IRP.

Ms. Balkus then explained that the federal government had to go through the USACE to develop a real estate planning report; the appraisal report had been done via this vehicle. She said that she did not know whether or not this report was releasable. It was her belief that Mr. Cottengaim had tried to give a verbal description of the process that was undertaken to develop those numbers. She also noted that Mr. Handy had been asked to provide information of his historical practices in terms of costs to run and maintain the bogs, typical yields, and so forth. This information had been utilized in the report to generate the typical expected yield. In addition, market forces were analyzed to determine the going rates for crops and the various payment factors for different colors, whether the berries were wet or dry-harvested, and things of that nature. Ms. Balkus told Mr. Whritenour that she would find out whether or not he could be given a copy of the report.

In terms of losing the money, Ms. Balkus reported that the Air Force had been authorized those funds by Congress in the 1998 fiscal year (FY) funds. She said that it was misleading to say that the funding would be lost to the Town of Mashpee if an agreement was not reached by September 30, 1998, rather the Air Force would not have access to FY’98 funds after September 30, 1998. Therefore if the Air Force did not have an agreement that could be put on a contract and be resolved, it would lose those funds and would have to go back to Congress to seek re-authorization of a new appropriation. She noted that the Air Force did not want to have to go through that process.

Mr. Sobel confirmed that Ms. Balkus would be available to discuss this more during meeting breaks. He also reiterated that this set of concerns would be passed on to Mr. Snyder and added that Mr. Snyder would be asked to respond directly to Mr. Whritenour. The comment was also made that replacing that funding, should it be lost, would not require going back to Congress.

Agenda Item #3. Review of Investigation Data

Ms. Balkus showed a slide depicting the characterization of the FS-1 plume and pointed out the monitoring well locations. She noted that this graphic was more detailed than the one in the meeting handout packet. She pointed out that the plume was coming down into the eastern edge of the bogs.

Ms. Balkus then referred to a poster of an aerial view of the plume/bog area and noted that this showed the groundwater flow contours. She said that from the installation of the groundwater wells and from some drive point sampling, it had been learned that the groundwater was coming in from a northeast direction and that most of the upwelling was occurring on the eastern side of the bogs. Also, groundwater was entering in an area on the northern side of the bog labeled K1 and in an area on the western side of the bogs. She explained that the overall area acted as a recharge center where everything came in from the perimeter and focused in on the bogs. She said that this was an important thing to remember when looking at some of the monitoring well results.

In terms of the surface water sampling that had been done, Ms. Balkus noted that it was a little bit difficult to be able to characterize the results due to the numerous fluctuations; therefore the Air Force wanted to continue to monitor the surface water. She mentioned that there had been some low concentrations and some non-detects in the upper area where the groundwater recharge was entering on the north side of the bog, therefore some variability was associated with that site.

Mr. Bicki referred to well #36SW0036, which he noted was going to be discontinued. He said that there were only four data points there, however the two detects there were an order of magnitude or two orders of magnitude higher in concentration than anything else. He said that the well appeared to be right in the path of a major concentration of the plume and he therefore questioned why it was being discontinued. Ms. Balkus replied that the variability of that location had been recognized (since last week when the photocopy to which Mr. Bicki was referring had been made), therefore the decision to discontinue that location had been reversed. She noted that it was important to keep in mind that this was a big area of recharge, therefore it was a very significant location. She also reported that some sampling results had come back last week and the detections had gone a little higher, she believed that the detection at area 201, at the inner edge, was at 1.1.

Ms. Balkus assured Mr. Bicki that station 36 (#366SW0036) would be continued. She noted that only two locations would be discontinued, these were stations 13 and 7. She reported that station 2 was going to be reactivated. She also reported that data would be gathered at stations 200 and 201 and explained that as the alternatives were reviewed it would become clear why these particular stations would remain active. She also mentioned that as the berries were collected this week, more surface water data would be taken as well.

Ms. Kiley asked Ms. Balkus if she was aware of the past data for station 2. Ms. Balkus replied that she did not have this information because the past data was not within the past four months; it was older than that. Ms. Kiley noted her belief that the stations had been sampled monthly over the past year. Ms. Balkus said that this was not the case; the sampling had only started in April. She also noted that a new plan detailing the additional surface water sampling was expected to be out within the next two to three weeks.

Ms. Balkus then showed a graphic that illustrated the locations of the drive points that had been installed throughout the bogs themselves. She explained that the goal of the drive point effort was to characterize the thicknesses of the peat located in the area. She noted that the peat acted as an aquatard in that it did not allow the groundwater to upwell straight into the bogs. She pointed out the concentrations of the peat itself on the graphic and noted that it became thinner toward the east, where the groundwater tended to upwell, bringing along with it the concentrations of EDB.

At this time, Mr. Szymoniak arrived at the meeting. Ms. Balkus showed the slide of the surface water sampling concentrations and turned the presentation over to Mr. Szymoniak. Mr. Szymoniak noted that since April sampling had been done at about eight different locations. He pointed to a couple of key locations and noted that after the drive point analysis the decision was made to revise the sampling plan a little bit. He said that station 2 had been reactivated and he also pointed out new stations 200, 201, and 203. He explained that the primary purpose of these was to look at the possibility of getting one channel to be non-detect by having all of the flow in just that one channel. He said that last week’s sampling had shown that station 2, which had previously had detections in August, was now non-detect. He mentioned that this information was in the RI report, however he did not have the report with him at this time.

Mr. Szymoniak remarked that the channel itself was so choked right now that all the water could not go out into the main tributary. He noted that all the channels connected and that there was a possibility that the water that upwelled on the eastern fringes of the bog could go through those channels and back into the western tributary. Mr. Szymoniak explained that with the drive points it had been determined that there was no upwelling in the bogs to which he was pointing. He noted that the goal was to try to get one particular tributary non-detect by having all the upwelling occurring where it wants to go and back into the channel. He pointed to stations 201 and 200 and noted that yesterday’s sampling results were 0.7 and 1.6, respectively. He remarked that the flow had been concentrated into that one channel.

An attendee asked Mr. Szymoniak if this data was validated. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the samples had been tested at the on-site laboratory and should therefore be fairly reliable. He also noted that resampling would be done today to see if the results were the same. He pointed to the drive point location with the highest concentration, which he said was 5.5, at a depth of about four feet. He then pointed to two areas where he said there was a lot of upwelling. He also mentioned that station 36 had previously been the highest, at 0.76, in July. Ms. Kiley asked Mr. Szymoniak if he had the results for that station from last week’s sampling. Mr. Szymoniak replied that he did not have that information with him.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that station 2 had been at 0.04 last week and noted that a tremendous amount of dilution occurred in this area. He reported that, as was hoped, station 203 was non-detect. Ms. Miles remarked that Mr. Szymoniak had stated that the goal was to keep the upper channel non-detect. Mr. Szymoniak pointed to the channel. Ms. Miles then asked what objective would be achieved by keeping the upper part non-detect while the lower part still had high detections. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the goal was to determine that the upwelling was occurring on the eastern fringes of the bog and not in the bog itself. He pointed to an upper channel and said that it was non-detect and added that he wanted to be sure that there was no other upwelling in the bog itself where the peat may be thinner. By forcing the upwelling into the eastern channel and collecting it somehow, either with a pipe or a swale, the method of collection could be successful, making it all one channel.

Mr. Szymoniak then pointed to the side of the bog where, based on monitoring well data, there should be no upwelling. Ms. Kiley noted that there was still flow through the upper channel, however. She asked if any channel had been closed off. Mr. Szymoniak explained that the channel would not have to be closed off because of the amount of vegetation there which itself was constricting the flow. He remarked that without doing anything, the goals of the phased approach had been met.

Mr. Szymoniak then showed a graphic of the drive points. He explained that the actual elevations where the water samples were taken were noted on the map and pointed out those that were taken right below the interface of the peat. He said that the top of the bog was at about elevation 30 and noted that there were detections on the edges of the bog but that the points inside the bog were basically non-detect, where there were significant peat deposits. He also remarked that where the peat was thin, there were high concentrations on either side. He noted that other constituents, toluene and TCE (trichloroethylene), had been detected at very low levels in those water samples.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that there were significant peat deposits, that the EDB seemed to upwell on the fringes of the bogs as did the groundwater, and that the peat acted as an aquatard causing the river to be somewhat disconnected from the groundwater.

An attendee asked if the numbers below the well numbers indicated the depth of the peat. Mr. Szymoniak replied that these numbers indicated the elevation at which the water samples were taken, in reference to mean sea level.

Ms. Miles asked if Mr. Szymoniak had said that the detections of toluene and TCE were primarily in the toe of the plume. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the detections were very sporadic. Ms. Miles asked if Mr. Szymoniak meant that there were sporadic detections throughout the plume. Mr. Szymoniak pointed out the areas where there had been detections of these other constituents and noted that the only discernible pattern was of TCE in the toe of the plume.

Ms. Kiley said that while she realized it was not associated with FS-1, she was interested in knowing about the drive points that were done for the contamination recently found closer to John’s Pond. Mr. Szymoniak stated his belief that no contamination had been found there, however he could not confirm this to be true. Ms. Kiley remarked that these drive points were near the river. Mr. Szymoniak agreed that this was so, referred to a map of the area, and noted that the piezometers had been left in place. He pointed to these locations and explained that the piezometers were there to measure stream flow. He then pointed to a well where EDB had been detected at depth and to another well where there were very low concentrations. Ms. Kiley asked if it was true that nothing was coming into the piezometers. Mr. Szymoniak replied that he would have to check to be sure, however he had not been told that there had been detections. He also reported that no contamination had been found in the wells drilled by HAZWRAP (Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program).

Mr. Szymoniak showed a graph depicting the relationship between the elevation of the peat and the concentrations of EDB. He noted that where there was low peat thickness, the EDB detections were higher.

Mr. Szymoniak showed a map indicating the locations of monitoring wells and noted that there was a proposal to drill three more wells. He said that the data from monitoring well 32 showed that the plume was very thick and indicated, based on the groundwater contours, that it would all upwell into the bog in that vicinity. He added that the thickness of the plume at the edge of the bog still had to be determined and that another unknown spot was along the road. It would also be useful to know the depth of the plume before it came into the bog. He said that these were the three locations where new monitoring wells were proposed.

Mr. Szymoniak reported that the concentrations found in the monitoring wells were as high as 7 and that the plume was very thick, some 200 feet, and extended all the way up to monitoring well 504. An attendee asked if this slide was included in the handout package. Ms. Balkus replied that it was not included because it was brand new. Ms. Kiley asked when the newly proposed monitoring wells would be installed. Mr. Szymoniak replied that this would occur within the next three weeks. Ms. Balkus added that these new monitoring wells were part of the workplan that included new surface water sampling.

Mr. Szymoniak reported that dissolved oxygen (DO) had also been considered. Three locations had been chosen where the DO and temperatures were observed for a one week period; these were all done in July and August. He pointed to the graph titled "Quashnet River - Surface Water/Dissolved Oxygen vs. Time" and noted that station 10 had very high DO. He said that during the day it could go up as high as 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and at night it could be as low as 5 mg/L. He also mentioned that station 13 was located on a wider channel.

Mr. Szymoniak then showed a slide titled "Quashnet River - Surface Water/Temperature vs. Time" and noted that a swing in temperature could be seen, which was more predominant where more surface area was exposed. At Coonamessett it was about 25 degrees Celsius above Hatchville Road compared to about 15 degrees here. He said that groundwater was usually at about 11 degrees and added that at station 10, groundwater flow made up the discharge and it was not held in that small bog for a very long time.

Mr. Szymoniak discussed the conceptual modeling and showed an accompanying slide. He noted that as this thick plume got closer to the bog, it began to upwell. He explained that the peat may prevent the lower concentrations from making it to the surface. He also noted that the when looking at the groundwater contours, it could be seen that the gradient beneath the bog was very flat. Therefore it took a long time for the water to move at depth. He said that the peat and the "disconnectedness" of the river affected how the contamination moved. Because of the thickness of the plume and the possibility of effects from the peat, this was somewhat complicated. He said that while an interceptor pipe may get a piece of the plume, the final remedy may have to include other ways to deal with the lower part.

An attendee asked how deep the plume was. Mr. Szymoniak referred to the graphic and noted that it was about 215 feet at total depth. He also mentioned that the groundwater elevation in the bog was about 30.

Mr. Szymoniak showed a graph titled "Quashnet River - Surface Water/EDB Concentration vs. Time" and noted that the trend was fairly steady with the exception of station 36 where it was expected that the EDB would upwell. He pointed out where two more stations had been added to try to determine what the effects were. He said that station 1 seemed to stay fairly steady at the 0.04 level, which was what was expected because of the dilution and the uniformity of the concentrations coming into that bog itself. Upgradient, at station 15, it remained non-detect. He also said that station 10, from the small bog, varied in concentrations from non-detect to as high as 0.1.

Mr. Szymoniak showed a slide titled "Quashnet River Bog System Groundwater Flow Direction" and reminded the group that a tremendous amount of water came into the Quashnet River. He pointed out the water flow from the various directions and mentioned both John’s Pond and Moody Pond as sources. He said that because of the peat, the water tended to upwell at the fringes of the bog itself.

Mr. Szymoniak showed a slide titled "Quashnet River EDB Air and Surface Water Sampling Locations" and reported that some air sampling would also be done. He said that at the Coonamessett River, the air had been sampled upwind and downwind from where there were higher concentrations in the surface water. He pointed to the areas where air sampling would likely be done on the Quashnet River and noted that the air canisters would be set out for a period of eight hours, for a time-weighted average. He said that the plan was to do one sampling event and noted that this was different from Coonamessett in that there were not large ponded surface water bodies, as at FS-28, which were of concern to the MDPH. Mr. Szymoniak mentioned that surface water samples would also be taken when the air sampling work was being done.

Mr. Jasinski inquired about the air station locations. Mr. Szymoniak noted that the locations were labeled on the map and pointed them out. Ms. Balkus added that the locations for the air stations had been changed since the handouts were made up, because the highest hits had been seen at station 36 since that time.

Ms. Kiley asked if the same protocol would be followed as before. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the same protocol would be followed, but this would be a one-time event. Mr. Sherman asked when the air sampling would be completed. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it would probably not be done for several weeks.

Mr. Sobel suggested that the group take a ten minute break before looking at the alternatives. Following the break, Mr. Sobel informed the group that the alternatives would now be discussed. He asked that the attendees ask clarification questions as the alternatives were reviewed and save their commentary for the overall review.

Agenda Item #4 The Alternatives

No Action Alternative

Ms. Balkus explained that the "no action alternative" did not mean that nothing would be done at the FS-1 site. She reminded the group that the only thing being discussed today was the bog/river diversion plan. She said that the RI has already been submitted and the FS stage, where various alternatives to deal with the plume and the groundwater cleanup would be proposed, would soon begin. She emphasized that "no action" in this case meant no action for the bogs in advance of the proposed remedy that would come out of the RI/FS process.

Alternative A - Buy Out

Ms. Balkus stated that Alternative A was a "buy out" whereby the Air Force would buy the land, lease the land, or continue the compensation as was done for this year and next year. She said that this approach was very complicated for the Air Force because the Air Force was not in the business of buying land, crops, or real estate. She noted that it would take some significant government bureaucracy to make this happen, however it was a potential alternative. She said that an advantage of doing this was that the bogs would potentially be usable again when the plume was completely cleaned up. She noted that the bogs would have to be maintained if this alternative was selected so that they could readily be put back into use. Another advantage of this alternative was that it would limit the food chain exposure because if the crop was tainted with low levels of EDB it would not be allowed to go out to market.

Ms. Balkus reported that a disadvantage of this alternative was that it was not known exactly how long it would take for the plume to upwell and degrade. Since the final alternative for the cleanup of the plume was not yet known, one could not estimate whether the cleanup would take two years, twenty years, or a century. Another disadvantage was that no improvement would be made to the bogs in this scenario, such as the opening up of some of the channels to improve some of the fish pathways or to improve the production of the bogs themselves. She also mentioned that it would be necessary for the Air Force to seek additional authority to do a "buy out" because that is not an environmental action and the Air Force’s environmental funds could not be used to procure real estate. The Air Force would, therefore, be stepping outside of its normal environmental cleanup area and this would have to compete with other Department of Defense (DoD) activities.

Ms. Kiley asked Ms. Balkus to inform the group of the "ball-park" costs for each of the alternatives. Ms. Balkus replied that she did not have those figures for the Quashnet River. She said that this data would have to be collected and she apologized for not having this information. Ms. Kiley asked if Ms. Balkus could at least provide a very broad range estimate and if not, she asked that Ms. Balkus have this information to share at the next meeting. Ms. Balkus said that she would rather not fabricate any information at this time and added that she would make this information available prior to the next meeting.

Alternative B - Interceptor Pipe

Mr. Szymoniak noted that the contaminated groundwater was at the edges of the bog. The Alternative B concept looked at the installation of a 12 inch pipe, at about a five to eight foot depth, to intercept the water before it could get to the bog. He explained that the water would then be forced back into a main collector and he pointed to the location where the water would be discharged. With this concept, all three bogs (K2, K3, K6) would be brought back into production.

Mr. Szymoniak mentioned that with this alternative there was still the problem of what to do with the brook trout in the K1 area. He said that one thing that had been discussed was the possibility of replacing the interceptor pipe with another swale so that the fish could have a place to get back to the other bog. He said that some of the bog could be taken out and a small berm could be built or the swale could be built on the other side. Mr. Szymoniak noted that the basic idea of this alternative was to capture the groundwater coming into the bog in a shallow trench or a pipe.

Ms. Balkus noted that the fish pathways had not yet been discussed and asked Mr. Szymoniak to point them out. Mr. Szymoniak pointed out the herring run, the channel traveled by the brook trout, and the brook trout spawning area.

Mr. Schall stood up to address the group. He noted that he has spent time on these bogs for over four years doing biological inventory work. He said that he had worked around bog K1, where the primary discharge tended to go in a northwesterly direction and get picked up by a tributary stream. He said that very little flow came down to the lower reaches at the exterior perimeter ditch which was clogged with vegetation. The water that did work its way in a southerly direction found the third or fourth interior ditch and turned 90 degrees to run in a westerly direction where it was picked up by the western tributary stream and carried down to the primary channel.

Mr. Schall reported that when Mr. Hurley had done his initial work in 1997, a significant flow was still running off in a north westerly direction through the brook trout habitat area and along the southern ditch of bog K1. He noted that in this past season, the perimeter ditch had been maintained, the vegetation had been removed and the primary flow was now occurring along the perimeter of the bog. He said that, due to bog maintenance, the flow to the north west was significantly reduced and there was limited westerly flow transversing the bog.

Mr. Schall also noted that the perimeter ditches surrounding bog K1 were recently reopened and there was now a strong gradient of flow out of the little wetland to the east of bog K1. He then pointed out where there was evidence of upwelling, a bubbling of fresh water, along the northerly bog ditch. He also noted that some groundwater seeps were occurring. He pointed to another ditch where he said the upwelling/bubbling could be clearly seen.

Mr. Hurley reported that there were over 200 brook trout, mostly juveniles and a few adults, in the upper bog alone. At the abandoned wetland there were more brook trout. Across the bog ditch, upstream on the eastern side, there were a lot of adult brook trout. Down below the pump house, there were other types of fish but no brook trout, due to the lack of flow. He also noted that there was a screen to prevent the alewives from entering the pump house and that this screen kept fish from getting from the main river and up into the bog.

Mr. Sherman asked if there was another round of sampling for EDB levels in the brook trout. Mr. Szymoniak replied that he did not believe so. He said that HAZWRAP had done a benchmark for levels of toxicity and had come up with a level for EDB of 30 mg/L. He noted that the levels in the river itself were fairly low in terms of ecological risk. Mr. Sherman asked what levels were initially found in the brook trout. Mr. Szymoniak replied that he believed that the highest level was about 0.1 in bog K1.

Mr. Hurley added that the MDPH had done the analysis and the brook trout concentrations were about 0.1, equivalent to the surface water concentrations. He noted that EDB had a very low bioaccumulation factor. Mr. Szymoniak said that the risk assessment assumed a bioaccumulation factor of 1, therefore whatever was in the surface water would be equivalent to what was in the fish. He said that from a toxicity standpoint, the benchmark was 30.

Ms. Miles asked if the cranberry bogs below the pump house were active and connected to the river. Mr. Szymoniak replied that they were. She asked if it was correct that the interceptor pipe would collect the water, which would then be discharged into the river. Mr. Szymoniak said that if the interceptor pipe was successful, the main western channel would become non-detect. He then pointed to the location where the water would be discharged and noted that the bog furthest to the south would be lost, K5.

Ms. Kiley asked why the discharge was not simply moved to the end of the bogs so that this bog would not be lost. Mr. Szymoniak replied that this could be done. Ms. Kiley asked if the goal was to get all the bogs back. Mr. Szymoniak agreed that this was preferable.

Ms. Miles commented that it appeared that Mr. Szymoniak was describing the alternatives without first defining the objectives for these alternatives, therefore it was difficult to understand where he was coming from. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the objectives were to protect human health and to bring the bogs back into production. He noted that the installation of the pipeline would not meet the concern to minimize ecological damage because it would not provide a habitat for the brook trout. This was why a swale was also being considered as a possibility.

Ms. Kiley asked if the fish runs could be maintained utilizing a swale from the pump house up, and a pipe from the pump house down. Mr. Szymoniak pointed out that the trout wanted to go the upper bog where there was EDB. Therefore the water there had to be picked up somewhere and kept separate. If a pipe was used there it would cut off the fish run. Ms. Kiley noted that a way to fix this problem was to use a swale rather than a pipe. Mr. Szymoniak agreed, pointed out where the swale would run, and noted that this was the concept that was originally presented. Ms. Miles asked why this was not then the solution. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it was because there was now also EDB in the central bog area.

Mr. Schall stated that from a biological standpoint there was a concern that, because of the length of artificial ditch that would have to be constructed, there would be a risk that it may not be accessible to the brook trout. He said that it would address the water, but perhaps not the brook trout. Mr. Szymoniak added that the longer that river channel was, the higher the temperature would be. Even if some clean water was coming into it, it may not be enough to overcome the surface water exposure. He said that it may be that a piece of the bog would have to be lost in order to gain some back. Mr. Szymoniak said that on the other hand, that bog could be kept by creating a very long swale for the fish, however the DO and temperature may drop off.

Ms. Miles said that she was not trying to minimize the fish concerns, however Mr. Szymoniak had said that the objectives were protection of human health and bringing the bogs back to production. Looking at Alternative B, as it stands now, she asked Mr. Szymoniak to explain how it would address these objectives. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it was hoped that the concentrations would be at less than the risk-driving level at the discharge location, where they would become diluted. Ms. Miles noted then that the assumption was that through dilution, the concentrations would be at safe levels. Mr. Szymoniak agreed. Ms. Balkus added that the reason that the pipe or swale was not carried all the way down in this scenario was because, although it had not been verbalized as such, the fish pathways were considered to be part of the objectives. The alternative would not even have come this far had it been necessary to eliminate the fish pathway.

Ms. Miles replied that she understood this, however she was interested in making sure that the alternative met the threshold objectives. She said that she was hearing that it was hoped and assumed that safe levels would be reached through dilution and she asked if there were backup plans in the event that this did not work out. She also noted that the alternative may create a point source for which treatment would be required. Mr. Szymoniak said that if the channels remained the way they were, but were separated from the bog, either by a berm or sheet piles, it would not be a point discharge because it would just be an existing swale.

Ms. Miles said that certainly an interceptor pipe would create a point discharge. Mr. Szymoniak agreed that that would be a new point source. Ms. Miles commented that the creation of a system to collect contaminated water to be discharged elsewhere may "trip that trigger"; she said that she would have to look into this issue.

Ms. Kiley asked if it was feasible, given that the pipe or trench would intercept the upwelling of the plume but that there would still be upwelling of the groundwater at the center main upper channel, which was also prime brook trout habitat area, that the trout would go up the main center channel instead. She asked if it was a case of taking one "road" away while another center channel "road" would be used instead. She also acknowledged that she was simplifying this scenario. Mr. Schall replied that this was part of the concern and added that this was experimental. He noted that the dynamics of the interior channel tributary were not as suitable for fish habitat. He also said that in bog K1 the flow dynamics and water temperature and "artificial" perimeter ditches were now serving the function of a spawning habitat. Ms. Kiley asked if any thought had been given to creating something like that on the western side. Mr. Hurley replied that an endeavor of that type would be a great research project that would take over fifty years or so with no guarantee of success.

Mr. Bicki noted that it could be argued that the trout were pretty resilient because the main path that they were taking up to K1 was an artificially created cranberry ditch. In fact, the trout did not want to use the main, natural channel. Mr. Hurley noted that Mr. Handy may be able to say when that ditch had been cleared out. He also said that he knew from the sampling that the fish had spawned there in late October and November of 1997. He noted that he himself was unable to answer the question of when that ditch on the eastern side was opened up. The sampling from early September of last year indicated that most of the flow came out of K1, went north and came along the abandoned wetland. He said that there was a lot of groundwater flow there.

Mr. Bicki commented that essentially the interceptor pipe would probably dry up the ditch on the east side, which the trout now used. He questioned whether there would be enough flow now going west, over the north end and into the original channel, to support the trout. Mr. Hurley remarked that the trout may not be able to get up into K1, which seemed to be the key spawning habitat. He stated that the question about Alternative B was whether a channel could be designed through which the trout could freely pass up into K1, and whether they would be diverted from following the channel they have been using for the past two years at least.

Mr. Spear asked if, instead of dumping the contaminated water into the river, it was possible to continue along the dike to the western perimeter ditch and run along the side with separation of the bog and have it join the flow at the exit of the bog. Mr. Szymoniak noted that this idea had been discussed last week. Mr. Spear noted that this could be done with a pipe. Mr. Szymoniak noted that a pipe would make things easier, however it would not help the fish. Mr. Spear referred to the discussion about using the main channel for the trout and said that if something were done with the numerous internal ditches, it may help to increase the flow in the main channel. Mr. Hurley commented that it seemed that it was half cfs (cubic feet per second) coming down the ditch and two or three cfs coming down in the abandoned bogs. Mr. Schall commented that he thought it was about a 1 to 3 split; about one third of the water was coming out of the northeasterly corner, bog K1; two thirds of the water for the system came from a westerly area.

Ms. Balkus asked Mr. Szymoniak to continue with the presentation of the alternatives and reminded the attendees to only ask questions that would help them to understand the alternatives. She noted that later in the afternoon the "the good, the bad, and the ugly" of each alternative could be discussed.

Ms. Kiley asked if calculations had been done for the percentage of the plume that was coming in, for example, at K1. Mr. Szymoniak replied that he did not know this information. He said that it was unknown how the gradient was changed; it may be a very strong gradient but was only bringing up that portion of clean water, some of which was contaminated. Therefore it may be only a very small portion that actually made it to the bog; this was why fluctuation, non-detect to detect, was seen. He pointed to a location on the map and noted that a well there would help determine how thick the plume was and how strong the gradient was. He remarked that there may just be a very small amount getting in and there would be no need to worry about it. Ms. Kiley said that this was what she was getting to and noted that it may turn out to be a good idea to start the trench just south of there.

Alternative C - Extract, Treat, Return

Mr. Szymoniak stated that Alternative C was a pump and treat alternative. He noted that the well would have to be located some distance away from the bog itself because of the radius of influence. He said that it would likely be located such that it would reduce the mass that made it into the bog. He also noted that because the bog was so long and slender, an additional well or two may be needed. Because there was no model, it was difficult to say how many wells would be needed. He mentioned that the lower piece would not be captured but should reach the surface pretty quickly.

Ms. Kiley asked Mr. Szymoniak about the time frame for this alternative. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it was difficult to say without having seen any modeling results. He also noted that, according to ComElectric, it would cost about $210,000 to bring in the 3-phase power source required for the system, all of which would have to be overhead power. He mentioned his preference for bringing the power come up from Hoophole Road and noted that ComElectric had a preference for bringing the power up from Saddleback Road.

Mr. Hurley asked if it would be safe to say that this alternative was going to involve a lot more research and planning. Mr. Szymoniak remarked that from FS-28 it had been learned that the modeling may not be all that accurate. It may be necessary to put in a pump test to see how things actually worked. He also mentioned that the data indicated that there was high manganese and iron, therefore it was most likely that the treatment train would have to entail metals removal.

Ms. Miles asked if it was feasible to do this. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it was feasible. He noted that there was room for a treatment plant on the eastern side of the bogs. Although the power may have to come from a different location than originally thought, this was not impossible.

Ms. Balkus added that these alternatives were somewhat conceptual. She said that the idea behind this meeting was to determine the preferred alternative or alternatives of the group. She said that she was sorry that everything was not developed and designed, however it is not a wise use of resources to fully develop all of these plans.

Mr. Bicki noted that a hybrid alternative would be Alternative B with a pump and treat surface water system. Mr. Szymoniak agreed that this was a possibility but added that it was difficult to treat surface water. Mr. Bicki noted that once the power issue was resolved, both options would be available.

Mr. LaFleur asked for and received confirmation that FS-1 was not part of the Southwest Operable Unit (SWOU). He then asked if there was a plan to clean up FS-1 or if Alternative C was considered to be that plan. Ms. Balkus replied that the FS-1 feasibility study was in the early stages of development. She said that it looked at the groundwater risk and would include pump and treat scenarios. She noted that this Alternative C would be in advance of that or could turn out to augment whatever comes out of the feasibility study.

Ms. Kiley asked if it was true that no consideration had been given to moving an extraction well any further upgradient and that the plan was to get it as close to the upwelling as possible, with the assumption that the feasibility study would look at anything further upgradient. Mr. Szymoniak agreed that this was true. He also noted that the goal here was to bring the bogs back to production; the feasibility study would look upgradient.

Ms. Miles asked if this was analogous to EW-1. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it was similar, but there were differences. He said that at EW-1 a gravel channel with higher concentrations had been located. In this case the higher concentrations were all the way up and down the whole plume. Ms. Miles remarked that it was very hard to evaluate this alternative and added that there was a high degree of questionability as to whether the upwelling could actually be captured, thereby reaching non-detect so that the bogs could be brought back into service. Mr. Szymoniak said that this was not necessarily so. He then referred to a point on the map near the bogs and said that if the well was located at that point, there would be a radius of influence and it may be another year before the bog could be brought back into service. However if the well was located somewhere near mid-depth to go after the mass, it would be very possible to bring this to non-detect.

Ms. Miles remarked that her sense was that there was upwelling all along the fringes of the bogs. She wondered how this alternative would stop the upwelling from going into the bogs. Mr. Szymoniak explained that it would be going after mass, giving it a preferential place to go. Ms. Miles stated that it was hard to understand that this would really work and achieve the objectives because it had not been sufficiently developed. She said that she understood what Ms. Balkus had said about not coming up with five completely designed plans, however she maintained that enough had to be provided so that the observer could look at the plan, decide whether it was viable and had a high probability of success, and determine the various pros and cons.

Ms. Balkus noted that with Alternative B there would be an earlier return on the investment because it would be known early on whether or not the trench was achieving capture. With Alternative C, a longer investment period was required because of the need to collect more data up front. By the time the system was installed, it would take longer to gather the data to determine whether the mass was actually being reduced and the bog was being impacted. She also said that while it would take longer to decide whether or not Alternative C was effective, it may run more parallel with the feasibility study; that may be part of what the group could use for its characterization of this alternative.

Mr. Szymoniak noted that it would probably take about four to five months to build the 650 gallons per minute (gpm) treatment plant to treat the iron, manganese, and the EDB itself. Therefore Alternative C may not be implementable within the given schedule, for this time period, because of the levels of the metals. He said that Ms. Miles seemed to be reaching the conclusion that there were a lot of questions on this alternative and that it was not necessarily helpful in meeting the immediate schedule. Mr. Szymoniak suggested that the final remedy may be pump and treat coupled with some kind of interceptor. The problem with the interceptor, which would have to be fairly deep because of the fish, was that shallow well points may be needed in order to actually install a pipeline, because the groundwater table was so high. He said that if a pump and treat system were done, it may be a combination of extraction wells or a combination of well points in order to do the shallow and the deep.

Ms. Miles remarked that Alternative C seemed to be the more long-term solution. If the objective was to get the bogs back on line, however, it seemed that Alternative B would be preferable. She said that she was having a difficult time seeing the merits of Alternative C. Mr. Jasinski said that he thought that the drive point scenario was the better way to go and added that a lot of pumping tests would not be needed for this. Mr. Szymoniak agreed. He also noted that the channel would be kept open, pointed out on the map an area where he said clean water was coming in, and said that the idea was to figure out what was dirty and get that first.

Ms. Kiley noted that this would bring about quick results. Mr. Szymoniak said that they would be relatively quick results and mentioned the problem of bringing in power. Mr. Jasinski said that he did not think that the power source problem was as big an issue as Mr. Szymoniak made it out to be. Mr. Szymoniak assured him that, having gone through FS-28, it was indeed a big issue. He said that it was not easy to work with ComElectric.

Ms. Kiley asked if this could be considered as another alternative. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it would be the same but with shallow extraction. He also said that it could give some design parameters for treatment. Ms. Miles repeated her earlier statement about the source points. Mr. Szymoniak posed the possibility that the discharge point may become a wetland for a particular short duration. He also said that it would be injected back into the ground. Ms. Miles asked if he was talking about an injection well. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it would be a shallow trench that would infiltrate back in, an infiltration gallery.

Ms. Miles commented that, given the time frames for the objectives for this particular action, and with the realization that a long-term remedial action was in process, she felt that Alternative C had some significant weaknesses which made it less viable than the others.

At this time Ms. Amy Brand introduced herself to the group and noted that she would be facilitating the remainder of the meeting following Mr. Sobel’s departure. She recommended that Mr. Szymoniak proceed with presenting Alternatives D and E and noted that all of the alternatives could be discussed in more detail after lunch.

Alternative D - Pond Development

Mr. Szymoniak referred to the graphic depicting Alternative D and reported that the alternative would create a nearly 6 acre pond, 14 feet in depth. He said that it would attempt to intercept the groundwater coming in from the north and the east. He pointed out where there would a significant excavation of about 236,000 cubic yards (CY). He also indicated on the map the area where the pond would drain out to the river beyond the channel. He explained that the attempt would be made to provide enough flow out of the pond and into the river so that the water would be held in the pond for a very short period of time. He noted that the outflow would be as high as 5 cfs in that particular area.

Ms. Kiley asked if the intent of the pond was to do passive treatment or just to collect the contaminated groundwater. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the alternative would rely on three things: dilution, volatilization and biodegradation. He explained that the pond would act as a large extraction well over its entire area. He also noted that this alternative still needed to be modeled.

Mr. Szymoniak then reported that the excavated material would go to a sand supplier for concrete mix and it would take about a 100 trucks a day to move the sand pile. He added that the trucks would probably come in on Saddleback Road.

Alternative E - Phased Approach

Mr. Szymoniak explained that the first part of the phased approach was to force the flow back to the existing eastern perimeter ditch. He noted that the vegetation in the channels had already forced some of the water back to the ditch. He said if the capture was successful, a swale channel would be put in that would collect that flow and discharge it further down. This was Phase I.

Mr. Szymoniak stated the interceptor pipe would be installed in Phase IIA. In Phase IIB, sampling would be done at the southwest locations to ensure that they remained non-detect.

Mr. Szymoniak reported that Phase III involved the installation of an iron filing pilot test to passively treat the EDB. He said that the vendor was given an assumption of about 650 gpm and would be coming back with a preliminary design. Should the decision be made not to go through with the iron filing pilot test, the interceptor pipe would be extended along the west end of bog K5.

Mr. Jasinski observed that the interceptor pipe extended north of K1 in this alternative but had not done so in Alternative B. Mr. Szymoniak explained that the attempt was being made to capture what was upwelling north of K1. He said that it was not clearly known which way the groundwater was moving. He also said that it was the same type of concept. Mr. Jasinski said that if it was the same, it should be the same all the way. Mr. Szymoniak said that there should not be any difference. Mr. Jasinski asked if that would alleviate the problem of the pipe for the brook trout. Mr. Szymoniak said that the trout would still need access to bog K1 and noted that if it was cut off, the assumption would be that there was no EDB left there. Mr. Hurley noted that there had been a big wash out of silt there in this past year. He added that the trout needed a clean habitat to spawn.

Mr. Jasinski stated that his question was whether it was good to have the interceptor pipe north of K1 or if it was better to have the interceptor pipe as it was in Alternative B. Mr. Hurley replied that any time the groundwater flow was intercepted it could effect the spawning habitat. He noted that the brook trout key in on upwelling groundwater. Mr. Jasinski asked if it was not a good idea then to extend that pipe further north than it was in Alternative B. Mr. Hurley replied that it was not a good idea if brook trout protection was one of the objectives.

Mr. Balkus explained that one of the benefits of this alternative was that it was a phased approach. She noted that it began with in-bog maintenance. By blocking off the irrigation channels to get the flow to come to the east side, with everything else staying the same as the first phase, the surface water stations would then be sampled in order to understand whether everything was actually being "favored" over into the east side. This was a step-wise approach in that one small action would be taken followed by sampling. Phase II would determine whether the existing bog ditch was doing an adequate job or whether an additional swale or interceptor pipe would be an appropriate next step, should there still be detections at those surface water stations. Based on the data, the decision may be made that the interceptor pipe would not be the best way to go, but that a trench would be. Again, the surface water stations would still be sampled whether or not there were detections at the center at stations 200, 201 and 2. Based on that data, if there were still concentrations, it would be necessary to go into Phase III which involved passive treatment. Ms. Balkus concluded that this was a more step-wise, phased approach that went beyond the interceptor or captor proposal of Alternative B.

Ms. Kiley noted that the discharge would still occur just south of the pump house in Phase II. Only after the third phase would the discharge occur at the very southern end of the bogs, therefore the acreage of the south bog would be lost with Phases I and II. Mr. Szymoniak explained that this would all occur in a short time period. Ms. Balkus added that it would only take a couple of weeks. Ms. Kiley said that she understood that the results would be almost immediate, which was a benefit of doing the surface water "Band Aid" rather than focusing on the groundwater. Mr. Szymoniak agreed and noted that this was what made it different from FS-28, dealing with the surface water first and then the groundwater.

Mr. Sherman asked Mr. Szymoniak to explain what Phase IA would accomplish. Mr. Szymoniak explained that purpose of Phase IA was to provide a comfort level that upwelling was not occurring on the upper western side of the bogs. Mr. Sherman noted that there would still be EDB along the eastern edge. Mr. Szymoniak agreed. He said that the drive points indicated that there was no EDB on the western side. Mr. Bicki noted that something would really be accomplished in that it would prevent EDB water from going west into the main channel. Mr. Szymoniak agreed that at least bog K3 could be brought back pretty easily, then in Phase II bog K2 and the southern half could be brought back into production.

Ms. Miles commented that without treating the discharge water the lower bogs could not be brought back on. Mr. Szymoniak said that was correct, unless it was rerouted down around the bottom. Ms. Miles asked why rerouting in this way was being considered for this alternative, yet would have been a problem for Alternative B. Mr. Szymoniak replied that there was still the problem of the brook trout because they could not go in the pipe. Ms. Miles clarified that Mr. Szymoniak was talking about a swale and not a pipe in the case of Alternative E. She had the same question, however, as to why the swale could go all the way down in Alternative E and not in Alternative B. Mr. Szymoniak explained that after the posters for this meeting were prepared, he had discussed a variation on the alternative with Mr. Hurley whereby a swale would come down on the east side to the discharge location. From that point a berm would be built along the side of bog K6 and bog K5 would be abandoned. Because this was such a recent development, it was not shown on the poster.

Ms. Balkus noted that there were two ways for the fish to go: up through the center channel, their present predominant pathway, and the current bog perimeter trench. Since it was being discussed to either put a pipeline in the existing bog trench or make another trench on the outside of it, there was concern that the fish could no longer use that secondary pathway. She explained that after that meeting last week it was learned that a pathway across the K1 bog may not be viable and she said that she was sorry that the graphics were not up to date. Mr. Szymoniak added that if there was a swale, it would not necessarily fit with the iron filings. Therefore the passive treatment may have to be done in the swale itself, perhaps a bed of iron filings. He noted that the pipe had offered a way into that passive treatment, this was much more difficult with the swale.

Ms. Kiley noted that it was key to maintain the center channel for the fish and to maintain the K1 habitat. Mr. Hurley proposed separating out the bogs from the stream, similar to Coonamessett. He noted that with a lot of these alternatives, K1, K2, and K6 would be lost. He said that it would be fairly easy to berm off parts of K6, and it may be possible to create a separate bog system in K2, while still allowing some habitat usable to the fish. He said that the problem was that EDB was upwelling within K1, along the side of K2 and on the top end of K6. He said that if the bogs could be separated out, Mr. Handy could operate his bogs and the fish could still spawn in that upper area.

Mr. Szymoniak attempted to illustrate Mr. Hurley’s idea. Mr. Hurley stated that his thought was to create a berm on the bog itself. He said that Mr. Handy would have to address whether or not this could be done. Mr. Szymoniak noted that it would be very difficult to build a berm along the eastern edge of K2 because of the peat, it would not be stable. He illustrated where the berms would have to go to make Mr. Hurley’s idea work. The comment was made that it would not be cost effective to put a berm in at K5.

Ms. Brand announced that it was noon, time for a lunch break. When the group returned from lunch, Ms. Brand asked Mr. Szymoniak to review the sketches he did prior to the break. She also asked that the group express their alternative preferences. Mr. Szymoniak reviewed the berm sketch that he had earlier drawn on top of the Alternative E poster. He also explained another sketch he had done that illustrated how the berm and the peat would interact. He said that the peat would act like water and that pressure from the top of the berm could cause the peat to bulge out although there were ways to compensate for this.

Mr. Szymoniak reported that an alternative to berming was to put sheet piling in along the eastern edge of bog K2 and perhaps along the bottom of K2. He said that because it may be more difficult to put sheet piling along the bottom of K6, it may be better to use a berm there. This approach would maintain the natural channel that was currently there and access would be good from both sides to drive the sheets. It was also a possibility to use shallower sheet piles along K6.

Ms. Kiley asked if the channel for the K1 bog would still be open in this scenario. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the fish would have to come up on the eastern side of K2 to get to K1. Mr. Jasinski asked if the fish would then be forced through a channel full of EDB. Mr. Szymoniak replied "low concentrations of EDB, yes" and noted that the concentrations were below the ecological threshold. Mr. Hurley asked what the level of EDB was in K1. Mr. Szymoniak replied that historically the level was very low, less than 0.1. Mr. Hurley asked if there was a way to put the K1 water into the northern channel because this was, historically, the preferred pathway of the trout. Ms. Kiley noted that K2 and K3 would have to be bermed in order to allow K1 to flow. Mr. Szymoniak agreed. He also noted that the depth of the peat was so thick that the berm may have to be fairly wide.

Ms. Kiley asked if it was possible to get some definitive information on K1. She noted that right now there was a lot of uncertainty and added that if it was known where the upwelling was occurring and how much was occurring, then something could be done to intercept just that portion. Mr. Szymoniak said that it may be possible to put in an interceptor and still have enough groundwater flow for the fish. However he said that it would depend on how much clean water was above the plume and he pointed to the cross-section graphic.

Mr. Jasinski asked at what elevation was the concentration of 3.4 and determined that it was at 150 feet. Mr. Szymoniak agreed and said that there was a lot of clean water on top. Mr. Hurley remarked that it was important to gain a good understanding of the flow out of K1 and out of the abandoned bog to the north of K2 to ensure that there would be a stream channel that could be used as a pathway for the fish. It was also important that there would be enough flow to compensate for the heating of the water. He said that it would take a lot of calculations and noted that some shade would have to be built into the channel to keep those temperatures down. Mr. Szymoniak mentioned that the sheet piles may provide shade.

Mr. Hurley noted that he was out in the discharge area on Tuesday and had observed that a small amount of flow was coming in from the new side channel that had been cleared out. He also noted that there seemed to be greater flow coming down the channel between K2 and K3. Mr. Szymoniak asked Mr. Hurley if there was a way to tell how much flow the trout would need to get back to K1. Mr. Hurley replied that the critical thing was whether there was enough shade for the ditch.

Ms. Miles noted that a lot of attention was being focused on a fish pathway on the eastern side of the bog. She asked Mr. Hurley how important it was that the eastern pathway be maintained. Mr. Hurley replied that his concern was the installation of an interceptor pipe above K1 which would interfere with the spawning habitat. Ms. Miles confirmed that Mr. Hurley’s main concern was for an interceptor pipe above K1 and that he was not so concerned about the eastern side of K2. She said that the fish pathway that really needed to be preserved was the main river channel.

Mr. Szymoniak noted that he was trying to force the pathway to the east because otherwise there was nowhere for the contaminated water at K1 to go. Ms. Kiley said that this was the question that had to be answered. Mr. Szymoniak remarked that it was known that K1 was contaminated. Mr. Jasinski said that it was sporadically contaminated, 0.064 in April, ND (non-detect) in May, 0.046 in early July and ND in late July; he stressed that it was not contaminated. Ms. Balkus reminded him that the bog was flooded in May and June and this had caused dilution. Mr. Szymoniak agreed that the contamination was sporadic but he did not know why this was so.

Ms. Kiley remarked that it was not yet known whether there was a simple engineering control that could somehow stop that small portion of the plume coming into K1. She said that if the pipe or trench was south of K1 and it got the rest of the upwelling, then 98 to 99% would be gotten in that trench. It may or may not be getting the upwelling coming into K1. If nothing could be done for that portion of the upwelling, then K2 and K3 would have to be bermed. She said that the fish would still have their pathway up the main channel but K2 and K3 may have to be bermed.

Mr. Bicki recommended a compromise wherein the hydraulic connection between K1 and the center part of the stream would be blocked off. This would maintain a channel for the fish around the perimeter ditch. Then the northern piece that was initially proposed would be mitigated, not to supplement the loss of the other, but to complement that. He said that any fish that made their way up that natural channel would have that mitigated area in which to spawn. The original spawning area in K1 would remain for the fish using the bypass channel, and the fish that used the natural channel would have that mitigated area. In this way, the amount of fish habitat would be increased. Mr. Hurley remarked that in order to mitigate it, the bogs would have to be separated from the stream. He said that the abandoned bogs basically functioned as a wetland and he also mentioned the outer perimeter bog ditch at K2. He explained that a lot of weeds were growing in and a bog ditch had to be maintained in an open condition to prevent shade. In order to mitigate that, a narrow channel and shade would have to be created on the other side, taking away some of the bog on the northern part of K2. A berm would have to be put in. He also noted that the bog operations could cause the silt to wash in.

Mr. Bicki commented that these were management options that could be addressed. He then approached the graphic and pointed out the two areas where the fish could spawn. He pointed to the area east of K2 and said that it would be maintained for treatment that would bypass everything. Mr. Hurley remarked that trying to take a natural wetland and turning it into a spawning habitat was very difficult to do. This would be a process that would have to be repeated, it was not something that could be engineered. He noted that there were pockets of upwelling along the northern edge of K2 now and added that he would rather see the natural pockets be enhanced. Mr. Bicki agreed that this was an option. However, he was thinking of a hydraulic barrier between the natural stream and the cranberry perimeter ditch so that everything on the east side of the bog could be effectively treated, as discussed with the different scenarios. However, the fish and contaminated water would be prevented from going west, around K2.

Mr. Hurley said that before there had been a strong flow out of K1 that was picking up along the edge of K2 and going down the main channel. The east side had been cleared out within the past year and there now seemed to be more flow coming down the east side. Mr. Szymoniak asked if there was a way to improve that area to make it a better habitat. Mr. Hurley said that one of the reasons why the trout probably spawned up there was because in the past the ditches were kept fairly clean. He explained that the brook trout keyed in on clean sand and noted that the ditches were different in K1 than they were in the middle of K2 and on the eastern edge. He said that they were fairly shallow ditches with a strong flow of water.

Mr. Handy noted that the only different thing that was done at K1 was that the flume had been moved. He said that a different pipeline was put in and the ditches were cleaned out, other than that nothing had changed. He also said that this seemed to be the natural way for the water to flow. Mr. Szymoniak recommended continuing the channels at K1 toward the northern wetland in order to try to improve the flow from there. Mr. Sherman commented that in improving that flow, the EDB would not be captured. Mr. Szymoniak said that would be good because the EDB would come down to the discharge point and would now be separated by the berms or sheet piles.

Ms. Brand asked where the fish would spawn. Mr. Szymoniak replied that they would spawn in the two areas already discussed, in the primary habitat and in the one that would be slowly established above K2. He also said that the temperature and DO could be measured and consideration would be given to ways to improve the flow at the K1 channel. Mr. Hurley noted that on Tuesday the measurements were 12.7 Celsius and 9.4 parts per million (ppm) oxygen coming right out of K1; at the lower end of the eastern channel it was 15.6 Celsius and 10.7 ppm; at the flume down below the pump house it was 16.5 Celsius and 10.7 ppm. Mr. Szymoniak noted that this was not too bad. Mr. Hurley agreed, however he noted that the measurements were not taken in August in the heat of the day.

Mr. Szymoniak proposed implementing the program to measure the temperature and DO at two places in the stream for one or two weeks and installing a gauge to measure the flow. In addition, ways to improve the flow at K1 would be looked at in order to make a nice gravel channel east of K2. Mr. Hurley remarked that more data would be needed. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the data needed would be temperature, DO, and flow; he said that these data should continue to be collected.

Ms. Kiley asked Mr. Szymoniak to clarify the locations where the data would be gathered. Mr. Szymoniak replied that flow measurements were already being done at stations 1 and 15. What was not known was how much was being contributed from the area west of K2 and K3 and the central bog area; these were the things that had to be determined. He also noted that it was desirable to get measurements at K1 to see if the flow could be improved there. He then pointed to a location east of K1 and noted that there was a weir there that was pretty backed up. Mr. Hurley noted that when he was on site on Tuesday he had seen upwellings on the northern edge of K1, however he said that the primary flow was coming out of that weir. Mr. Szymoniak noted that this area had been sampled in the past and the samples had been clean. He said that perhaps it could be pinpointed where the EDB was at K1, the clean water flow could be improved and then, as was preferred, the channel along the western edge of K2 could be kept.

Mr. Szymoniak said that at the same time more data would be collected in order to determine if an artificial channel could be put along the eastern edge of K2. Mr. Sherman remarked that if an artificial channel was built there, part of the bog would still need to be bermed. Mr. Szymoniak agreed and noted that a berm would be put along the eastern edge and the bottom of K2 and along the upper and lower western edges of K6. He noted that all of them could be sheet piled as well. He also mentioned that the sheet piles would not be as deep at the lower edge of K6 because of the thickness of the peat deposits there.

Mr. Sherman expressed his interest in knowing the comparative costs of sheet piling and berming. Mr. Spear noted that it would be problematic to have short pieces of sheet pile because they would start to float. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the right amount of dead weight would be needed and that there was a finite depth that would have to be met, perhaps 12 or 15 feet.

Ms. Miles asked from where the water for the K6 bog would come. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the water would have to come from K2. Ms. Kiley asked if that was water for all uses: harvesting, flooding, and so forth. Mr. Szymoniak replied that he thought the water was now coming out of John’s Pond and he asked Mr. Handy if that was correct. Mr. Handy said that some of the water came from John’s Pond but a lot came from the upper wetland. Mr. Szymoniak noted that if all the water was to come from the upwelling, there would have to be enough upwelling to make up for the water from John’s Pond and to flood K2, K3, K4 and K6.

Ms. Miles noted that K2 would still be connected to the river. Mr. Szymoniak agreed but noted that K6 would be cut off and the water would have to be "stair stepped" there. Mr. Jasinski asked what bogs would be lost with these scenarios. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the only bog that would be lost was K5. Mr. Jasinski asked if bog K4 would be okay. Mr. Szymoniak said that it would. Ms. Kiley asked if K4 would have to be bermed. Mr. Szymoniak replied that this would depend on the discharge point.

An attendee asked if any consideration had been given to sacrificing K1 and flooding it. Mr. Szymoniak replied that this had been discussed, however this was not preferred because of the brook trout. Mr. Hurley explained that the reason the brook trout were spawning there was because of the flow speed of the groundwater that was cleaning the sand. There the trout had clean sand and a gravel substrate in which to spawn in upwelling water. He explained that flooding would cause a pond situation with weedy growth. Mr. Szymoniak noted that a pond would also raise the temperature and change the DO.

Ms. Kiley asked if, conceptually, the same thing could be effected using shallow drive points along that stretch rather than a berm or sheet piles. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it would be the same except that with a berm some of the water going into that ditch would actually be taken away; with the shallow drive points it would actually be intercepted. If it was intercepted, the water would have to be made up from somewhere else. He then pointed to where there would be a cone of depression east of K2 and noted that water would want to flow back to that in order to make up for the loss. Mr. Jasinski commented that this idea should not be lost; this idea should be on the table, instead of Alternative C.

Ms. Kiley noted that in this new alternative being discussed, where a berm would be placed there would potentially be shallow drive points, along the eastern side of K2 and between K2 and K6. Mr. Szymoniak remarked that he did not think there would have to be well points on the eastern side. Ms. Kiley clarified that what she meant was that where the berms now would be, there would be drive points. She then asked if it would still be necessary to have a berm along the western side of K6 assuming that there was a decision to go with the shallow drive points. Mr. Szymoniak replied that this was correct and added that if shallow drive points were done, it would now be into a pipe which could extend to below K5 and K6. Ms. Kiley noted that all the bogs could be brought back in this case. Mr. Szymoniak agreed.

Mr. Jasinski remarked that the discharge would have to be treated, just like ETR (extraction, treatment, reinjection); it would have to be extracted, treated, and put back into the river. Mr. Szymoniak noted that because of the iron and the manganese, a metals treatment would be needed. Mr. Jasinski noted that, from an engineering standpoint, it was probably much easier to build berms. He also asked if settlement analysis on the peat would have to be done. Mr. Szymoniak replied that this would not be done in this case. Ms. Brand reminded the group that now was not the time to engineer the alternative.

Mr. Jasinski remarked that he wanted to clarify that the idea was not to add shallow well points to the alternative, rather it was to do shallow well points instead of the one extraction well. Ms. Kiley agreed. Mr. Szymoniak illustrated this by drawing on one of the available graphics. (Ms. Brand noted that at future meetings clear plastic overlays for the posters would be provided.) Mr. Hurley noted that any groundwater taken away would decrease the brook trout habitat and commented that he would rather see the water discharged further upstream than Mr. Szymoniak had just indicated on the graphic. Ms. Kiley remarked that once the water was treated it could be discharged back upstream. Mr. Hurley said that to discharge it back, a more natural stream channel would have to be put in. Mr. Spear recommended that it go around the outside, above where K1 went into K2. Mr. Szymoniak noted that there would have to be a balance. Mr. Hurley recommended putting it down through a bubbler and bubble it up through a sandy bog, which would create more spawning habitat. Mr. Szymoniak agreed that this could be done.

Mr. Szymoniak also noted that one disadvantage of well points was that when there was a lot of volume, they were not preferential. Mr. Jasinski asked if Mr. Szymoniak was talking about the same 650 gpm. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it was more than that. Mr. Jasinski asked him how he knew that without doing any tests. Mr. Szymoniak explained that the wells would be placed ten feet apart in order to create a cone of depression that would run at 20 to 25 gpm. He said that a 2500 foot length would require 250 wells; 250 wells times 20 gpm equaled 1100 gpm. Mr. Jasinski asked about the size of EW-1. Mr. Szymoniak replied that EW-1 was designed for 800 gpm but was only running at 600. He then reiterated that shallow well points would deal with a lot of water in order to treat that small cone.

Mr. Sherman asked if it was correct that with this methodology it would not be necessary to berm sheet piles. Mr. Szymoniak replied that this was correct. He also noted that with that high volume, 1100 gpm, it would not all be contaminant, there would be a lot of clean water. Ms. Kiley said that with any of these alternatives there would most likely be some kind of upgradient treatment for the groundwater, perhaps not through this system, but through the FS process. She said that it was not as though whatever was implemented at the bogs would be implemented indefinitely, it was just that the time frame was not yet known.

Mr. Schall asked whether another unknown was the impact of that zone of depression on the levels of flow in the easterly ditch or coming out of K1. Mr. Szymoniak replied that this was a question of balance. He also noted that the shallow well points would be the same as a pipe in this scenario. He said that an interceptor pipe was like a long horizontal well and could work on a long-term basis compared to the shallow well points. He said that this was a very complicated situation; it was not as simple as FS-28.

Ms. Balkus proposed the following scenario: that the existing bog trench remain where it was and an additional trench or pipeline was put outside of that, thereby not interrupting the fish. She noted that the only risk would be the percentage that may be making it into the existing bog trench and past the interceptor. Mr. Szymoniak agreed. Ms. Miles noted that basically then there would be interceptor piping parallel to the existing ditch and added that she thought it would be fairly dry. Mr. Szymoniak drew an illustration and explained to Ms. Miles what would happen.

Ms. Kiley noted that many data gaps had been identified. She asked what the time frame was to get some of that needed information; she wondered if it would be a matter of weeks or months. She noted that it was difficult to determine a preference for a particular alternative without first having some of these data gaps addressed. Ms. Brand said that she had noted a need for the following information: information on the flow out of K1 into both channels, the temperature and DO in both of those channels and how to deal with these so that the channels would be adequate for the fish, and the flow at the weir at K1. Ms. Kiley added that there was also a need for information about where the groundwater, particularly the contamination, was upwelling at K1. She said that it was possible that there could be some kind of engineering control for this one small piece so that the whole bog would not have to be sacrificed.

Mr. Szymoniak noted that the way to do this was to sample the individual springs for EDB. He added that if there was EDB in a spring, it was still not known whether it could be controlled. Ms. Kiley asked if this was something that AFCEE was likely to pursue in the short term. She then asked, if her question could not be answered today, could it be answered at the next meeting. Ms. Balkus stated that prior to today’s meeting, only surface water sampling, groundwater sampling, and air sampling had been envisioned. She mentioned the time constraints that were discussed earlier and noted that it was difficult for her to say that more data would not be collected because she realized that it would be valuable. However, she questioned the wisdom of collecting that much additional data because, considering the time and effort that it would take to do so, it may make more sense to just choose the "no action" alternative and wait for the RI/FS. She said that this "interim" work could not be done within the given time frame.

Ms. Kiley mentioned the outstanding discussion from yesterday’s meeting about the authority under which the work was going to be done. She noted that this would have ramifications in terms of local, state, and federal permitting and exemptions and asked Ms. Balkus if she could speak to this issue. Ms. Balkus replied that it would be helpful if the list of alternatives could be narrowed to those that were probable; once the list was narrowed, the type of required permitting could be determined based on the type of actions that would be taken. She explained to the group that Ms. Kiley was referring to the fact it had not yet been determined whether this action would be taken under a CERCLA authority, in which case walking through the steps of the permitting process would not be required; only the substantive requirements would have to be met. If the authority was non-CERCLA, however, it would be necessary to account for the time period that would be needed to obtain those local, state, and federal permits that were appropriate to the particular alternative or range of alternatives.

Ms. Balkus then noted that Ms. Kiley had asked a valid question when she asked how long it would take to gather the data and apply it into a decision cycle. She then reiterated that the goal was to make a decision this September/October and begin engineering so that the chosen alternative could be constructed and implemented between November and April. She then said that perhaps this group should discuss whether taking any interim action would be of value or whether "no action" or Alternative A - Buy Out should be more closely considered.

Ms. Kiley said that she thought the information on the seeps could be quite readily available and added that this was something that could be implemented fairly quickly. She also mentioned that the time frame for installing the well was at least a month and it would take a few weeks for the workplan to mobilize, so things would not come together until October in any event. She asked if this would work and then acknowledged that her question had already been answered.

Mr. Spear remarked that he had found the discussion about which channel to use or whether to use both of the channels "as slippery as trying to grab onto those fish." He recommended that the group concentrate on a solution to this. He said that the necessary data should be collected and then one or both channels should be chosen; once this decision was made, other actions could be determined. He also noted that sheet piling was a widely used product and added that it was not complex but just required a lot of quantity. He said that although there were some engineering challenges because of the deep peat, he felt that the group should not shy away from this solution. Mr. Szymoniak agreed that a sheet piling solution would work fine.

Ms. Brand noted that she had heard the following preferences: a preference for maintaining the western channel for the brook trout, a preference for maintaining K1 as a brook trout spawning habitat as opposed to the abandoned bog or mitigated bog, and the obvious, unspoken preference for getting as much of the bogs back into production as possible.

Mr. Jasinski recommended that Ms. Balkus consider adding seep sampling when putting together the workplan that was already going to include surface water sampling and well sampling. He said that, as Ms. Kiley had said, it would not be a big effort to add the seep samples. Mr. Szymoniak remarked that the challenge was in finding all the seeps. Mr. Jasinski noted that there were quite a few people in the room, such as Mr. Schall, Mr. Handy, and Mr. Hurley who could be helpful in locating the seeps. Mr. Hurley noted that there were some obvious ones. Mr. Szymoniak said that the obvious ones were not the problem, it was the total number of seeps. Mr. Jasinski said that perhaps the focus should be on the obvious seeps in order to get some data.

Ms. Miles noted that one of the thorniest issues was the contamination coming into K1. If the brook trout spawning habitat were to remain open so that the trout could come in, there was a problem with the contamination at K1 going out through that channel. She proposed that there may be some way to collect the water along the eastern side of K2 with an interceptor pipe, treat the water, and then put it back into the river where K1 enters the main channel. She then asked if it could be assumed that, through dilution, the water would reach non-detect. Mr. Szymoniak said that this was possible. Ms. Miles stated that a lot of the other alternatives relied on dilution and added that if there was a way to rely on dilution here, the problem of having to cut off K1 could perhaps be avoided.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that the problem was with the metals and the pre-treatment that might be required. He explained that if a significant amount of iron was intercepted, it would have to come out in the carbon unit, thereby fouling the carbon. This was why pretreatment would be necessary. However, pretreatment would create backwash, or sludge, which would have to be dealt with on a daily basis. Ms. Brand concluded that this scenario would result in a higher cost, a bigger treatment plant, and greater environmental concerns because of the sludge. Mr. Szymoniak agreed. He also noted that it would take 1500 tons of iron at a cost of $400.00 per ton. He then suggested an extraction/discharge iron filings pilot test at the much smaller, more manageable area of K1.

Mr. Spear asked if this idea would solve the rest of the problems at the bogs. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it would just be an interim action to keep K1 clean, EDB would continue to upwell elsewhere. Mr. Hurley stated that he envisioned doing Alternative B, collecting the water along the side of K2, treating it and reinjecting it back up at K1. With this approach, he said that the fish could still get up to K1 through the main channel. He noted that there would have to be a separation between K1 and the eastern ditch and explained that it would be something like what had originally been envisioned for Alternative B, however instead of going on top of K1, it would go down below K1.

Ms. Brand noted that the group had come up with a lot of modifications to the existing alternatives. She asked if the group was interested in discontinuing any of the alternatives. Ms. Kiley noted that pieces of the various alternatives were attractive and commented that certain things, such as the channels for the fish and discharge points, had to be kept in mind in order to proceed with any of the alternatives. Mr. Spear noted that there were two basic approaches, exclusion and treatment and suggested that discussing the advantages and disadvantages at that level may eliminate a whole category.

Ms. Kiley asked again if "ball-park" cost estimates for the alternatives would be available at the next meeting. Ms. Balkus replied that so many new factors had been added today that it would be necessary to start from ground zero in terms of estimating costs. However, if the group could determine today what it wanted to go forward with, perhaps deciding between the two categories that Mr. Spear had suggested, then it would be easy to provide some "ball park" estimates. Ms. Kiley remarked that it would be helpful to have "ball-park" figures for the alternatives as they had evolved today.

Mr. Szymoniak noted that there was a well point idea, the berm concept, and the intercept/treatment/reinjection concept. Mr. Spear remarked that this last idea could go either way; it could be intercept and treat or intercept and release; these were just variations of Alternative B. Mr. Szymoniak stated that either treatment and reinjection upstream could be added to Alternative B or it could be taken as it was, and ideally there would be enough flow to get non-detect in the channel. Ms. Miles reminded Mr. Szymoniak of the point discharge concern.

Ms. Brand noted that the following alternatives had been discussed: a modified version of Alternative B to include interception, treatment, and upstream reinjection; a modified version of Alternative B to include interception, no treatment and downstream release, with special attention given to the point discharge problem; the berm concept; and a modified version of Alternative C to include shallow points, either with or without treatment. Ms. Miles also mentioned the idea of a small iron filings treatment at K1. Ms. Brand noted that this would be done in conjunction with berming; it would not work on its own. Ms. Miles remarked that this treatment probably went with Alternative B, and she also mentioned the possibility of insufficient dilution at K1 without treatment. Mr. Szymoniak said that it was necessary to determine how to get K1 to non-detect.

Mr. Spear noted that a decision tree was needed. Mr. Szymoniak said that this alternative relied on dilution in order for it to work, so the flow out of K1 would have to be known. Mr. Jasinski suggested that the term "cleaner water" be used rather than "dilution." Ms. Kiley noted that Alternative B would either be intercept and treat or intercept and release; the contingency for treating something else would apply to either of those options.

Ms. Brand asked if Alternative A was still on the table. Ms. Balkus replied that she thought it was. Mr. Handy recommended throwing Alternative A right out. Mr. Szymoniak turned the group’s attention to Alternative C, the well points, which he said also involved treatment or non-treatment options. Mr. Jasinski asked if there was a similar contingency here. Mr. Szymoniak said that there was and also noted that the interceptor and the shallow well points were nearly identical. Mr. Jasinski asked if Alternative D could be eliminated. There were no objections and Alternative D was eliminated.

Mr. Schall noted that much of Alternative E phased into Alternative B. Ms. Brand concluded that Alternative E was not really an alternative on its own and the alternative was eliminated. Mr. Szymoniak noted that there was now a new alternative, Alternative F, which would involve either sheet piling or berms. He also said that Alternative F had different variations; if the west tributary was kept, a considerable amount of the bogs would have to be bermed. Ms. Kiley noted that if K1 became non-detect, it would probably not be necessary to berm at K2 or K3.

Mr. Hurley remarked that it was important to find out the flow rate at K1 and the concentrations as well as the flow rate at the abandoned bog section above K2. Mr. Szymoniak then pointed out on the map the areas that would need to be separated. He then asked if there was a way to get K5 back. Ms. Brand explained that under this berm alternative, Alternative F, K5 would be lost, as would K1.

Mr. Szymoniak suggested the possibility of creating a new bog east of K6 to replace K5. Mr. Sherman noted that the property line was very close at the southern end of K6. Ms. Balkus questioned whether this was potentially consistent with town goals. Ms. Kiley asked if K5 would then go to a natural wetland. Mr. Szymoniak said that it would and added that K6 was clean. Mr. Schall noted that the area west of K3 was also clean and asked if there were other possibilities for bog expansion. Mr. Szymoniak said that he supposed there were. Ms. Kiley said that there could then be a new bog west of K3 to replace K5. Mr. Szymoniak noted that, for a variety of reasons, it would be easier to create a new bog east of K6.

Ms. Balkus asked those in the group who were concerned with permitting whether they foresaw the expansion of the K6 bog as under the agricultural exemption. Mr. Sherman remarked that it would seem to fit under bog maintenance. Mr. Spear said that he thought it was probably exempt; he did not think that it would have to undergo all the heavy scrutiny and paperwork. Ms. Kiley said that when this was brought up yesterday, concern was expressed about the interpretation of some of the language in the agricultural exemption. She said that it could be a little bit "hairy" because the work would be done because of contamination from the base, even though ultimately it would improve the bogs. She noted her understanding that building berms was a typical practice, however, she added that building berms to separate out contamination was something else. She said it was important to get this resolved. Mr. Spear said that the alternative should be run by the MassDEP so that it could say to its own satisfaction that the proposed practice would be dealing with the contamination issue. Ms. Kiley stressed that she was simply relaying the message, she was not the person who made these decisions.

Ms. Brand noted that it appeared important to define the permitting issues. Mr. Sherman noted that similar actions at the bogs, for which filing would not have been required, were being considered before it was even known that EDB was present. Mr. Spear noted that the USACE could sign off on the work. He also remarked that it made a difference whether the building was done on a natural wetland or agricultural wetland.

Mr. Whritenour noted that the September 30, 1998 deadline was creating a lot of apprehension. Ms. Balkus asked if Mr. Whritenour was referring to property access or easement because of the installation of additional structures. Mr. Sherman reported that he had been led to believe that any solution would require some kind of easement/legal instrument. Ms. Balkus explained her understanding of the issue. She said that actions would be considered under an agricultural exemption, (for example, the piece of K6 that was discussed) if the Air Force, the Town of Mashpee and Mr. Handy worked cooperatively to the point of agreement, in which case right of entry or access wou