1. Appendix F: Draft Fuel Spill 1 System Performance and Ecological Monitoring Plan
2. Various graphs and documents pertaining to FS-1, labeled A through K
3. FS-1 Cost and Performance Response
4. E-mail message from Dr. Feigenbaum entitled "FS-1 Typo"
5. Jean Crocker’s statements regarding FS-1
6. Fact sheet: How to Get Information
7. Map: Groundwater Findings Massachusetts Military Reservation September 2001

Mr. Field convened the meeting at 6:06 p.m. and stated that tonight’s discussion will focus on the question of whether to install an additional monitoring well in the northern portion of the FS-1 plume. He reviewed the agenda and noted that traditional groundrules will apply at this meeting. Mr. Field then asked the attendees to introduce themselves, which they did.

Mr. Gill stated that at the last Senior Management Board (SMB) meeting, the "risk plus" standard, which the community expects and to which the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) is committed, was discussed. He said that he believes that the information that AFCEE has shared with the regulators and with the Plume Cleanup Team (PCT) covers not only the risk concerns at the Fuel Spill 1 (FS-1) plume, but also the "risk plus" concerns. He then said that after the presentations this evening, he hopes to hear from the group whether there is agreement that AFCEE has struck the right balance of "risk" and "plus" regarding FS-1.

Mr. Smith referred to Appendix F of the Draft Quashnet 2001 Annual Report, the Draft FS-1 System Performance and Ecological Monitoring Plan. He noted that the document contains the monitoring plan that AFCEE has on the table for hydraulic and chemical monitoring at the FS-1 plume, and he mentioned that the source area also will continue to be monitored. He also noted that the isoconcentration map contained in one of the handouts uses data from October 2000 and shows the 5-part per billion (ppb) contour north of Flight Path Road.

Dr. Feigenbaum noted that the isoconcentration map, which is dated June 11, 2001, indicates that the data were from December 2000. Mr. Smith clarified that the data actually were collected in October and November of 2000 and came back from the lab in the December timeframe.

Mr. Smith again referred to the isoconcentration map and stated that monitoring well labels shown in boxes indicate that they are newer wells installed as part of the data gap investigation effort. He then pointed out monitoring well 1038 (MW-1038), MW-1041, and MW-1040, which are located on Orenda Wildlife Trust property, and noted that data from those wells provided an understanding that the plume is not uniform in terms of concentrations; rather, a lot of the mass is concentrated in the southern part of the plume. In order to confirm characterization of the plume, a pre-existing location, MW-1013, was re-drilled down to bedrock and found to be non-detect. Therefore, it’s believed that there are good bounding locations as the plume makes its bend and rises up into the bog.

Mr. Smith also pointed out MW-603, at the very north end of the plume, and noted that an 8.6-ppb measurement was made there at depth during the supplemental remedial investigation in 1998. He noted that as part of the modeling effort, and to be conservative, that data point was migrated forward and incorporated into the plume shell to ensure that it was captured in the evaluation. He explained that the contouring shown on the map comes from multiple data points and more than one sampling event.

Mr. Hugus questioned why the migrated 8.6-ppb measurement was named as a 5-ppb contour rather than an 8-ppb contour. Mr. Smith replied that the 8.6-ppb was a screening data value; when it was resampled at the set screened interval, the detection was in the neighborhood of 6 ppb. Mr. Judge asked why the 8.6-ppb isn’t shown on the map. Mr. Smith replied that it would be within the 5-ppb contour. He explained that contouring is done in intervals – from 0.02 to 1 ppb, then 5 ppb, and presumably the next contour would be 10 ppb. Dr. Feigenbaum asked for a description of 10 ppb in terms of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for ethylene dibromide (EDB). It was noted that the MCL for EDB is 0.02 ppb, and Mr. Jacobs stated that 10 ppb is 500 times the MCL.

Mr. Smith then referred to Table 4-3, which includes data from the northern FS-1 monitoring wells that was collected in August of this year. He explained that those data were collected in order to see if in fact the plume is behaving as expected. He then noted that concentrations at MW-603A dropped from 2.9 ppb in April 2000, to 1.8 ppb in October 2000, to 0.7 ppb in August 2001. He said that this provides a sense of how things are changing and migrating forward. He also noted that at MW-503A, concentrations are generally stable, going from 1.38 ppb to 1 ppb, to 1.4 ppb; concentrations at MW-503B are similar and also generally stable. Mr. Smith referred to the October 2000 data and stated that concentrations at MW-503, MW-1037, and MW-1039 have been fairly constant over time.

Mr. Smith directed the group’s attention to a line graph entitled "Comparison of Predicted and Observed EDB Concentrations at the Trailing End of the FS-1 Plume." He said that with the exception of the line representing MW-603A, which is based on field data, all the lines represent predictions of what will happen over 1800 days from October 2000. Mr. Smith noted that the MW-603A line shows the decline in concentrations and is well below what the model predicted, which speaks to the conservatism of the plume shell. He added that data indicate that the northern part of the plume is trailing off as expected. He also said that to address uncertainty in the northern part of the plume, AFCEE has looked at multiple rounds of monitoring and made certain that there are a number of bounding wells to ensure that the plume is contained within the monitoring network.

Mr. Smith then stated that members of the Plume Cleanup Team (PCT) and the regulatory agencies had recommended that AFCEE look into collecting more data to provide better definition of the 5-ppb contour north of Flight Path Road. He showed a graphic entitled "West-East Cross-Section at 36503A,B,C – View Looking North" and a graphic entitled "Plan View in Model Layer 17," and noted that, based on modeling, it’s expected that the 5-ppb contour has begun to migrate south of Flight Path Road. He added that the concentration the model predicts would be seen at MW-503 matches with what’s been measured in the field. Mr. Smith explained that the point of showing this set of graphics is to illustrate that the monitoring network is strategically placed to evaluate the mass as it moves south toward extraction wells.

Dr. Feigenbaum inquired about the distance represented by the graphic. Mr. Jacobs replied that the distance from Flight Path Road to MW-503 is about 600 feet.

Dr. Bacigalupi referred to the "Plan View in Model Layer 7" graphic and observed that the highest contour level goes from 6 ppb in October 2001 down to 3 ppb in October 2004. He asked if there is an assumption that natural attenuation would be occurring there. Mr. Goydas replied that the 8.6-ppb detection, the highest concentration ever observed, was migrated forward with no attenuation or dispersion and was used to develop the plume shell. While there is no biological degradation or mass destruction, there is, however, "an actual advection dispersion stretch of the plume." Mr. Field suggested that this could be compared with pulling a piece of taffy. Mr. Goydas agreed.

Mr. Taurasi asked if dilution is the key word here; that is, there’s more water but the same amount of contaminant. Mr. Goydas acknowledged that recharge accretion occurs over the top of the plume. He also noted that sensitivity testing was conducted to address the question of uncertainty. He again mentioned that there is no mass destruction, and added that "mass that enters the system upgradient has to come out the other side."

Dr. Feigenbaum remarked that the plume doesn’t appear to be getting any wider. Mr. Goydas replied that it is getting wider and deeper. Dr. Feigenbaum remarked that this isn’t shown in the graphic. Mr. Goydas explained that the graphic illustrates velocity, which varies between the northern and southern end of the plume. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that it’s important to keep in mind that there is no well in that region to verify what’s occurring there. Mr. Smith explained that the FS-1 plume has moved from its source to discharge, thereby establishing a "pipeline" and having affected the aquifer as much as it is going to do. He noted that the FS-1 plume is not like the CS-10 plume, still moving toward its discharge zone.

Mr. Smith then stated that while the model predictions agree with the field data so far, monitoring will continue in the future, and, like all plume systems, this one is dynamic. Changes will be made, if need be. He also mentioned that extraction well 11 (EW-11) will fully capture the northern part of the plume. Mr. Gill noted that Figure 4-2 in Appendix F shows extraction well locations.

Mr. Smith distributed to the group copies of some cost calculations. Mr. Hugus and Dr. Feigenbaum indicated that they would have liked to have received the calculations in advance of the meeting. Mr. Smith then showed a map entitled "EDB Detections at FS-1 2000" and noted that it shows the October data and where the detections are moving down through the system and into the discharge area at the bogs. He then apologized for not having provided his calculations earlier, and explained that he just recently pulled these numbers together because there appeared to be some problems with the numbers that had come out before.

Mr. Smith explained that the initial thought was that an additional extraction well north of Flight Path Road would enhance the system and potentially save money. After going back and looking at the numbers, it was determined that the capital cost for a five-well scenario would be $3.5 million. With operations and maintenance (O&M) costs of $6.2 million over 10.5 years of operation, the total cost would be $10.1 million. For the four-well scenario that AFCEE is proposing, the capital cost would be $2.2 million, with O&M costs of $9.4 million over 15 years of operation. Therefore, the cost difference between the two scenarios would be $610,000. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that at the June meeting Mr. Smith presented different figures for O&M costs. Mr. Smith replied that there had been some communication problems, but they had been corrected. Mr. Field recommended moving on to regulator comments and coming back to cost details later in the meeting.

Mr. Jacobs of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) showed a marked-up version of Figure 4-2, "Recommended FS-1 Plume Chemical Monitoring Locations," from Appendix F. He reported that the parties had requested additional monitoring on Flight Path Road to test for EDB concentrations in the 2000-foot area, between MW-1036 and MW-503, where there are no monitoring wells. AFCEE then collected samples from monitoring wells upgradient and downgradient of Flight Path Road in order to determine how the field concentrations compared to what the model was predicting. In general it was found that the model appeared to be over-predicting some of the concentration in the northern part of the plume. Mr. Jacobs noted that screening values, such as the 8.6 ppb at MW-603, generally tend to be higher than fixed well screen values.

Mr. Jacobs stated that in a year’s time the 5-ppb contour has moved such that the leading edge is just to the south of Flight Path Road. He then noted that the model predicted a 2.4-ppb EDB concentration at MW-503A, while results from August 2001 sampling showed an actual EDB concentration of 1.14 ppb at that location. Also, at MW-1036C the model predicted a concentration of 0.42 ppb, while the field measurement came in at 0.062 ppb. At MW-1036B the model predicted a concentration of 0.58 ppb and the field measurement was 0.2 ppb. Mr. Jacobs noted that elevated mass really wasn’t being seen in the monitoring wells north and south of the high-concentration area, which gave the sense that the model was conservative in estimating mass.

Mr. Jacobs reported that modeling runs indicated a difference of 3% in mass removal (90% versus 93%) between the four-well scenario and the five-well scenario after seven years of system operation. However, after 15 years of operation, which is the predicted amount of time the system will have to run to clean up the much higher concentrations, both models came out at about 96% mass removal. He noted that the 4% that doesn’t get removed would be made up of 1% that becomes locked in the silts and 3% that discharges to the bogs. It was considered that, over time, the two scenarios performed identically. He added that concentrations would be monitored closely to see if they track as predicted. Mr. Jacobs also made a point of noting that he is presenting the technical perspective.

Mr. Taurasi said that he would like to acknowledge that the Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) work very hard, tackle some very tough decisions, and make some great decisions. He then noted that at the October 24, 2001 SMB meeting, Mr. Gill had indicated that the public input process for the FS-1 plume wellfield design and monitoring plan was not perfect. He added that Mr. Gill also had offered to have an additional monitoring well installed north of Flight Path Road should the SMB request it. Mr. Taurasi stated that DEP’s position is that it wants to accept Mr. Gill’s offer, for various reasons.

Mr. Taurasi explained that MassDEP wants the additional monitoring well because it would help to alleviate lingering public concerns, and restore public confidence in the FS-1 remedy. Also, the additional well would provide more information on the northern part of the plume where there currently exists a 2000-foot data gap. Mr. Taurasi stated that MassDEP always accepts offers to provide additional information. He also mentioned that the FS-1 plume "has surprised us before" when it was discovered that EDB was upwelling into the bogs. He noted that EDB is persistent by nature and is one of the worst contaminants on the base, with the lowest MCL, 0.02 ppb. He also explained that he would rather err on the side of having more information rather than less information. Mr. Taurasi concluded that while MassDEP hasn’t required an additional monitoring well, it certainly supports that additional well.

Ms. Sanderson noted that the balance being sought pertains to the idea of "nice to have, but not critical," what that means, and how it informs decision making. She also said that she thinks that the proposed monitoring system is fairly vigorous in terms of quarterly monitoring of wells to ensure that the system is performing as expected. She added that she would like to think that when data that are not predicted start to be seen, the agencies would be able to talk that through and make adjustments to systems.

Ms. Sanderson further noted that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional administrator, Bob Varney, asked her to come to tonight’s meeting. She said that Mr. Varney has received and read everyone’s correspondence pertaining to FS-1, and is hopeful that tonight’s meeting will help address those issues. Ms. Sanderson stated that Mr. Varney also asked that tonight’s meeting stand as a response to the letters he’s received.

Mr. Hugus said that before discussing the public involvement and technical questions pertaining to FS-1, he would first like to urge the SMB to resolve this issue tonight as it has been ongoing since last spring.

Mr. Hugus said that he believes that the FS-1 debate is not just a technical issue, but that there are background reasons driving AFCEE’s opposition to installing the additional monitoring well. He added that while he doesn’t know what those reasons are, he wonders about an Air Force policy to cut costs at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). He also said that he appreciated the letter he received from Capt. Yatto of the Coast Guard urging him to rejoin the PCT, "to stay involved and not give up on this fight." Mr. Hugus noted, however, that he doesn’t think it is a fair contest. He explained that it seems to him that the Air Force was going to do whatever it wanted, based on its own priorities, whether or not he remained a member of the PCT.

Mr. Hugus then reminded the group that the FS-1 plume wouldn’t even be on the map today if it weren’t for pressure from the citizens. He explained that in 1990 the National Guard Bureau (NGB) insisted that the plume didn’t exist. It turned out, however, that FS-1 is one of the most toxic plumes on the base. Mr. Hugus noted that recently the remark was made that he and Dr. Feigenbaum believe that there’s no community input only when they don’t get their way. Mr. Hugus stated that this is not at all true.

Mr. Hugus explained that long ago a process was established for addressing cleanup at the base, and that process was not followed for FS-1. He noted that last spring, at what was then a Joint Process Action Team (JPAT) meeting, the team was presented with a remediation decision made by the RPMs and told that there would be no time for further discussion after that meeting. Mr. Hugus noted that the team wasn’t given the chance to be involved in the decision making, which was a violation of the process. He added that "it’s not a question of us not getting our way, it’s a question of insisting on the groundrules that have been set up…" Mr. Hugus further noted that he thinks that MassDEP and EPA also participated in that violation because they didn’t grant a time extension for team members to comment.

Mr. Hugus stated that it’s been seven months since that spring JPAT meeting. The plume has traveled a considerable distance, which in itself is frustrating for those who thought it was a common sense proposal to add more monitoring; however, they don’t think it’s too late. Mr. Hugus also mentioned that there have been precedents at other plumes where AFCEE was resistant about adding new wells, FS-12 being an example where the team insisted on following up on an EDB detection and ultimately having a new well installed there. He said that it was very difficult to have that done, and he is convinced that AFCEE is just trying to cut back on its costs at the base.

Mr. Hugus continued by stating that the initial plan for remediation of FS-1 was based entirely on saving the cranberry bogs at the southern end of the plume. He explained that he and Dr. Feigenbaum are calling for a rethinking of how to treat the plume, and they believe that that should have happened before the remediation plan was presented to the team last spring. He stated that the plume is very toxic; the 5-ppb contour exceeds the MCL 250 times. He said that he and Dr. Feigenbaum originally proposed that an extraction well be installed in the 2000-foot gap where there is no certain knowledge of the plume. Based on numbers provided by AFCEE, he and Dr. Feigenbaum found that the remediation time for the entire plume would be cut by 4.5 years if an extraction well were installed on Flight Path Road. This would cut the cleanup time from 15 years down to 10.5 years, with a mass capture rate of 96%.

Mr. Hugus reported that AFCEE said no to this proposal; however, EPA and MassDEP did advise AFCEE to install one or two additional monitoring wells at Flight Path Road. The team agreed to that, not giving up on the idea of an extraction well. Mr. Hugus said that AFCEE then came back and said that it’s not really sure that that high concentration is even there, and furthermore, the existing monitoring network is good enough. Mr. Gill stated that he doesn’t recall AFCEE ever saying that it didn’t believe that the higher concentration was ever there. Mr. Hugus countered that the whole nut of the problem is that it isn’t really known what’s in that 2000-foot area. He added that it seems to him that every time the team comes up with a proposal, the rules change, from meeting to meeting.

Mr. Hugus noted that one problem is that the "East-West Cross-Section" graphic appears to overestimate the distance the 5-ppb contour has traveled, while other data provided by AFCEE indicate that that contamination hasn’t traveled that far. Also, the minutes from the last PCT meeting refer to 77 monitoring points for FS-1; while that doesn’t translate to 77 wells, he doesn’t see why there’s such a problem with providing one more monitoring point for that area. He further noted that there is a question about the persistence of the plume. He explained that AFCEE has laid out a fantastic dilution rate, going from 6 ppb to 3 ppb in three years. However, the source of the plume, the aviation gasoline, was dumped 30 years ago, and in that time the plume has not diluted at that rate, nor has it traveled as quickly as AFCEE is implying.

Mr. Hugus remarked that this never should have been a complicated issue. He said that he thinks that AFCEE should have just granted the additional monitoring well "on common sense grounds" long ago.

Dr. Feigenbaum stated that he agrees with Mr. Hugus that the community involvement issue is very important. He said that the kinds of policies that he and Mr. Hugus are trying to promulgate are based on a consistent approach to the remediation problem as it affects all four of the Upper Cape towns. He also mentioned the "very long protracted fight" to get additional monitoring wells at the FS-12 plume and said that he thinks it just shouldn’t be that hard. Dr. Feigenbaum acknowledged that the Air Force needs to spend money on other parts of the country that are polluted, and added that the PCT’s function is to be the front negotiators to get as much cleanup as possible, as rapidly as possible, at MMR.

Dr. Feigenbaum commented that the Landfill 1 (LF-1) plume was one of the first places where the procedure for community involvement broke down. He said that he thinks it’s important to look at the history of community involvement, given that Mr. Hugus didn’t quit the PCT because he was denied one monitoring well. Rather, he quit because of an entire history that led him to believe that a rigorous approach to cleanup is being ignored. He explained that with regard to LF-1, AFCEE came up with the monitored natural attenuation (MNA) plan before going before the JPAT, and he believes that the current situation with FS-1 is the same.

Dr. Feigenbaum recounted that AFCEE said that it could not put an extraction well in the northern part of the plume because it already had agreed with the regulators on enforceable milestone dates and no modifications, which he had perceived as "the death of the process." Then the team proposed a plan to get the job done faster at a marginal cost, without interfering with enforceable milestone dates. Dr. Feigenbaum then referred to the chart entitled "FS-1 Remedial Design – Model Predicted Mass Removal Under Scenarios 5d and 5g," and noted that it shows 95.8% mass removal after 15 years of operation with the four-well scenario, and the same amount, 95.8% mass removal, with the five-well scenario, after only 10.5 years of operation – a saving of 4.5 years in the time to run the system. Mr. Field clarified that Dr. Feigenbaum is referring to remediation years, not calendar years.

Dr. Feigenbaum directed the group’s attention to the chart entitled "Comparison of Capital and O&M Costs for Quashnet Pilot System and Scenarios 5d and 5g." He said that while the information is a little confusing, he calculated that the 4.5 years saving in O&M costs translates to about a $190,000 net cost to install a fifth extraction well. He also mentioned that he believes that the total cost for the system is around $10 million, which may not include other costs, such as landscaping, payments to the cranberry growers, and payments to the Town of Mashpee for lost revenue. He suggested that with those costs included, the total cost could be around $15 million – therefore, the $190,000 would be less than one percent of the total cost.

Dr. Feigenbaum then stated that the PCT was established to do the job of achieving the maximum possible cleanup, as quickly as possible, and in a way that’s both technically and financially feasible. He said that he thinks that the team’s alternate plan meets all those criteria. He also noted that the alternate plan would be ecologically sound, and the treatment system could be modularized so there would be no need to run pipe all the way down to the treatment system near the bogs. Dr. Feigenbaum commented that he believes that "there’s just no good reason not to do it."

Dr. Feigenbaum again mentioned the discrepancy in cost calculations, and noted that he, Mr. Marchessault, and Mr. Pinaud together had calculated a net cost of $190,000. Mr. Marchessault countered that the number had been $610,000. Mr. Field stated that the confusion may be due to a communication that he had sent out. He also suggested that Dr. Feigenbaum and Mr. Smith revisit and resolve the discrepancy later in the meeting.

Mr. Gill said that whether the cost were $200,000 or $600,000, he would fight for a fifth extraction well if it saved 4.5 years on the remediation time. Mr. Hugus remarked that there’s no question of that. Mr. Gill replied that there is quite a bit of a question there. He noted that AFCEE’s estimation was that the system would have to run for 15 years with either a four-well or a five-well design, and he believes that EPA and MassDEP would have the same expectation. Dr. Feigenbaum referred to the line graph entitled "Percent of Initial EDB Mass Extracted by Wells and Discharged to Bogs, Two Scenarios," and said that it illustrates that the five-well design would accomplish in 10.5 years what the four-well design would accomplish in 15 years. He added that there’s nothing strange about that because with the five-well system there wouldn’t be a wait for the upper mass to reach the treatment system.

Dr. Feigenbaum continued with his retelling of the FS-1 process by noting that after having made the argument for a fifth extraction well, based on cost calculations, another component was added when the team’s attention was directed to a MassDEP letter advising AFCEE to install additional monitoring wells in the northern part of the plume. He said that he had good faith that the regulators would get those wells, after which the idea of additional extraction could be discussed further. Therefore, he was very surprised when, at the October PCT meeting, Mr. Smith informed the team that AFCEE would not be installing any additional monitoring wells. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that the EPA representative at the PCT table that night acknowledged that the data that had convinced the regulators that an additional well wasn’t needed was not included in the data presented to the team at the meeting. Dr. Feigenbaum said that it seems there were two meetings where the team "basically got stonewalled" – one where members were told it was no use to make comments on the original plan, and another where members were presented with data that everyone agreed didn’t make the case for not adding more monitoring wells.

Dr. Bacigalupi noted that there had been a 2000-foot data gap at the Storm Drain 5 (SD-5) plume, and the system that was installed there is now being shut down because it has cleaned up SD-5 North. He then questioned why the capital cost would be $1.3 million to add one more extraction well for the FS-1 plume, when the capital cost for the entire four-well system was quoted as $2.2 million. Mr. Smith clarified that the $1.3 million cost is for a well and a treatment plant. Dr. Bacigalupi stated that it would cost a quarter of a million dollars a year to operate that one treatment plant, yet it probably would be easier to pipe down to the existing plant. He noted that AFCEE’s data indicate that the current system already has removed 8.7 pounds of contaminant, which leaves roughly 8.5 pounds more to go. Therefore it appears to him that it’s going to cost about $9 million for "the same amount of removal with one well." Dr. Bacigalupi also noted that while the East-West Cross-Section looks at the 5-ppb contour, there is another 1-ppb area at MW-603, which is 50 times the MCL. That also will be moving farther south and will have to be captured.

Dr. Bacigalupi also brought up the issue of lost revenue to the Town of Mashpee because the bogs are not producing. Mr. Smith said that if crops are lost, there is compensation for the town. Dr. Bacigalupi explained that he is concerned about compensation in future years. Mr. Smith replied that the modeling demonstrates that there will be complete capture within a couple of years after the full system is on line; therefore, compensation shouldn’t be an issue in the future. Dr. Bacigalupi noted that it is his understanding that the cranberries can’t be marketed until after two years of nondetect readings at the bogs. Mr. Smith clarified that it is a one year timeframe. Dr. Bacigalupi mentioned that the system doesn’t achieve 100% capture, so some EDB will continue to discharge to the bogs.

Dr. Bacigalupi then said that even if all the contaminant had been dumped at the latest possible date, 1970, that would mean that it took over 30 years for the contamination to travel from the source area to MW-603. Therefore he questioned why AFCEE is indicating that "this huge amount of distance is going to be covered in 15 years." Mr. Smith pointed out that the plan view shows the highest concentrations; however, the concentrations are distributed vertically through the section, and the travel time diminishes moving down through the section. Mr. Goydas stated that velocities vary from a little over 2.5 feet per day to less than 1/10 of a foot per day. Mr. Smith added that this is why one "can get into trouble" when trying to interpret a plan view map with respect to velocities. Dr. Bacigalupi suggested that the source area elevation above mean sea level and the elevation of the detection at MW-603 above mean sea level would indicate what is the actual decline in 30 years.

Mr. Goydas said that there seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the information that’s been presented. He clarified that it’s not being said that the source area immediately ended, although there was definitely a decline in source in the vadose zone. He noted that concentrations seen at the upgradient wells don’t represent water that entered the water table in 1950 or 1970, but water that entered within the last several years. He explained that the fuel didn’t disappear overnight; however, the wells upgradient of MW-603 all are non-detect. He also said that the groundwater velocities do indicate that concentrations are declining more rapidly than the model suggests. Mr. Goydas stated that the bottom line is that it’s not believed that the water at MW-603 is representative of 1950’s or even 1970’s water, but is much more recent, probably because there’s a continuing source in the vadose zone.

Dr. Bacigalupi suggested that he could determine how quickly the plume is moving south based on the date of the last above-MCL detection at the southernmost non-detect well north of MW-1035 and the date of the first non-detect reading there. Mr. Goydas disagreed, and noted that this wouldn’t account for retardation in the aquifer and in the saturated zone. He said that "last occurrence/first arrival" can’t be used as an indicator because of dispersion and retardation. Dr. Bacigalupi noted that it’s vertical dispersion. Mr. Goydas clarified that it’s longitudinal as well – as was mentioned earlier, like pulling taffy. He said that a better indication would be to look at the water table map, the pump tests from P11, and the system operations. He stated that the speed of groundwater flow velocity is understood because the site has been characterized.

Dr. Bacigalupi noted that at the SD-5 plume there were many monitoring wells that would or would not have detections depending on water table levels. He said that his point is that he doesn’t think it’s possible to get an idea of how quickly the below-MCL level has moved south, just from a given source, and added that "these wells are not sampled that often." He again questioned what will happen to the 1-ppb area that is traveling south.

Mr. Goydas reiterated that the model is mass conservative. He also said that the leading edge of the plume probably is indicative of 20 to 25 years of travel time, and the plume has reached its ultimate discharge point, the bogs. That provides a rough estimate of how quickly groundwater is moving. He said that the contaminant at MW-603 is, of course, migrated into the future as pumping begins, as is the higher concentration zone. He stated that again, no mass is destroyed or degraded; rather, it basically resides in a different portion of the aquifer. Mr. Goydas explained that the design is tested using conservative assumptions – for example, with dispersion removed from the equation, and with the plume scaled seven times – to ensure that the design will perform and to assess the appropriateness of the monitoring network.

Ms. Valiela stated that she believes that everyone has heard Dr. Bacigalupi’s concerns, but would suggest moving on to other PCT members and residents of Mashpee to hear their comments.

Ms. Walker asked for and received confirmation that the installation of a monitoring well near Flight Path Road would cause fewer ecological impacts than the installation of an extraction well. She then asked for an explanation as to why at the last SMB meeting AFCEE offered to install an additional monitoring well at the board’s request, when AFCEE already had informed the PCT that it would not install that well. Mr. Gill explained that if the SMB, particularly the selectmen, indicated that they didn’t have confidence in the proposed monitoring network, to which the regulators had agreed, that would be a signal to him that he had misjudged the public acceptability of the plan. He clarified that AFCEE has not changed its view that while it would be nice to have an additional well, it’s not needed from a technical standpoint. However, his offer to make the effort to have an additional well installed was more based on a "risk plus" standpoint. Ms. Walker replied, "we accept."

Ms. Crocker referred to some written notes and stated that as a member of the PCT and the former Public Information Team (PIT), she wants the SMB to know that she is very pleased with the scientific, very civil and decent conversation, cooperation, communication, and effective collaboration among the agencies and scientists who work on the southern MMR plumes. She said that she is happy with the efforts to disseminate information to the community and the process that’s been used in the past to resolve issues, and to reach closure on policies and procedures, regarding FS-1 particularly. She also said that she steadfastly believes that the conclusions of Mr. Gill’s scientific group should be the yardstick with which to measure decisions, costs, procedures, and community public information regarding FS-1. She further noted that, as a native Cape Codder, it is of huge importance to her to look forward to improved community relations among the MMR military, the citizen advisory committees, and community citizens beyond the MMR post and the four Upper Cape towns.

Ms. Crocker stated that she perceives that an element of the SMB’s function is to present information to the public, especially now that the PIT is no longer operating. She offered to be of assistance in that regard. She then urged the SMB, after listening to and assimilating the information presented tonight, to make objective public informational statements with reason and objectivity, pertaining to the MMR issues that the board covers.

Ms. Crocker further noted that she believes that the people of Cape Cod would like to put to rest all the contention that has marred the mood of the Cape community’s social, economic, military, and communication environment. Regarding FS-1, Ms. Crocker stated that she supports Mr. Gill and his team with all of the expertise they have to offer.

Ms. Crocker also mentioned that although she was unable to attend the October 10, 2001 PCT meeting because of family obligations, she had forwarded the message that she wanted to give her thanks for all the hard work and effective results that she has observed pertaining to land water cleanup processes. She added that she has confidence in Cape Cod’s future water supply quality and in the scientists’ efforts and expertise.

Ms. Crocker further noted that she is concerned that some individuals insinuate that it is bad to consider expense as one facet of a cleanup decision. She said that she believes that "over-cost" for unnecessary actions should be weighed very carefully in favor of caution, consideration for the taxpayers, and the issue that money for MMR cleanup affects military monies available for training. Ms. Crocker concluded by saying that she thinks it’s important in these days to be careful of spending policies and procedures, when "money for national defense has a certain obvious priority."

Mr. Mierz stated that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) believes that the SMB selectmen should accept Mr. Gill’s offer to pursue the installation of an additional monitoring well in the northern part of the FS-1 plume. He noted that Ms. Suzanne Condon, who was not able to attend tonight’s meeting, supports that stance.

Mr. Field identified the following key issues on which he thinks the group should try to reach agreement tonight: whether or not to install an additional monitoring well on or near Flight Path Road; how to handle process concerns with the PCT and the SMB, with respect to final design; and how to rectify the cost discrepancy for an additional extraction well, which should be worked out by Dr. Feigenbaum and Mr. Smith directly. Mr. Field also mentioned two other issues: the effect of cost on cleanup decisions, and the question of a fifth extraction well, to be located in the northern portion of the plume. Dr. Feigenbaum pointed out that there’s no need to come to agreement on an extraction well until after results from a monitoring well are available. Mr. Field agreed and then asked Mr. Green and Mr. Sherman, residents of Mashpee, to share their opinions.

Mr. Green stated that he really hasn’t heard anything tonight to convince him that there’s a need for an additional monitoring well, and noted that Mashpee’s town consultant also doesn’t see a need for an additional well. Mr. Green said that while he "could live with" the well, he doesn’t see how it would provide enough knowledge to justify itself or for him to encourage its installation.

Mr. Sherman, a member of the Mashpee Conservation Commission, stated that the Commissioner hasn’t taken a position on an additional monitoring well or on the issue of a five-well scenario versus a four-well scenario. He also noted that when he spoke to the consultant, Bill Fisher, last April, Mr. Fisher was of the opinion that the fifth extraction well probably wasn’t necessary. Mr. Sherman said that he would inform Mr. Fisher about tonight’s discussions and provide him with the meeting handouts.

Mr. Sherman also said that the town has its hands full with issues that haven’t been discussed tonight, such as the impact of the infrastructure itself on the cranberry bog hydrology, the fisheries, and so forth. He noted that this has been an enormous task and will remain so because whatever the final extraction scenario is, it will impact that system all over again, in ways that are not yet totally clear. He said that the wetland north of Grafton Pocknet Road is of special concern and will be an important part of the Commission’s considerations. He then reiterated that the Commission has taken no formal position with respect to costs, monitoring wells, or the number of extraction wells.

Mr. Green stated that while he would be concerned about potential effects caused by a modular system, he would be even more concerned about the destruction that would occur from a piping run from a fifth extraction well down to the existing treatment plant. Dr. Feigenbaum assured Mr. Green that the idea is to take pressure off of the bogs. Mr. Smith added that a modular unit would involve an extraction well and a small treatment plant capable of handling about 200 gallons per minute (gpm). However, it also would involve reinjection, and therefore some piping out to infiltration beds or reinjection wells. Power cables also would be needed to support the system. Dr. Feigenbaum suggested that there’s a possibility that the modular unit could be located close enough to the base that the power source could be located there, and added that the system might require only very short piping runs.

Ms. Valiela inquired about the nature of the habitat along Flight Path Road where an additional monitoring well might be located. Mr. Sherman replied that most everything in that area is scrub oak and pitch pine. Ms. Valiela asked if there are any wetlands there. Mr. Sherman replied that he is not aware of any in that area.

Mr. Field stated that he has heard three viewpoints: that an additional monitoring well is not needed because the available field data, the modeling, and the existing monitoring network are adequate; that an additional well is imperative because of the uncertainty associated with the 2000-foot stretch where there are no monitoring wells; and, that while an additional well isn’t essential technically, it would be nice to have. He then asked if there were any other comments on technical issues.

Mr. Hugus noted that the East-West Cross-Section graphic, and table F-4-3, which contains actual field data, contain conflicting information. He pointed out that the graphic shows a 3-ppb contour line at MW-503 in October 2001, while table F-4-3 shows a concentration there of 1.14 ppb, at about the same time, in August. Therefore, the graphic is wrong. Mr. Field observed that the model overestimates the field data by three times. Mr. Hugus agreed and said that it seems that the data are being made to prove AFCEE’s point, which is that the northern high-concentration area already has traveled too far to remediate it with a northern extraction well. At this time, Mr. Field reminded the group of the groundrule about not attributing motives to others.

Mr. Goydas explained that the difference in the field observed data and the modeled prediction is due to the effort to ensure that the design-basis plume shell is conservative enough. He said that the model is conservatively representing any mass. He added that an increase in concentrations is expected in the area of MW-503, and if it seemed that someone was saying that the plume mass was gone, that was a miscommunication. Mr. Goydas stated that it’s believed that that northern mass is in the area of Flight Path Road and will migrate through MW-503, where an increasing trend is now beginning to be seen.

Mr. Hugus stated that he thinks there’s too much reliance on modeling and extrapolation, and that a truly conservative approach would be to determine, with real data, what actually exists in the 2000-foot gap. Dr. Feigenbaum added that he thinks that the case has been made for an additional monitoring well, given that the modeling is off by a factor of 3. Mr. Smith emphasized that that was done by design, in order to be conservative. Dr. Feigenbaum countered that in this case, "one person’s conservative is another person’s liberal." He also said that overestimating the speed of flow says something about the possible remediation scheme. He explained that if the northern plume mass were traveling at 5 feet per day, it would reach the southern extraction fence within a couple of years, thereby discrediting the idea of a northern extraction well. He remarked that AFCEE’s financial analysis, and its "inappropriate modeling" both go to the direction of AFCEE providing only information that proves the merit of its preferred system. Dr. Feigenbaum urged AFCEE to get the real data so they can become known and the arguing can end.

Ms. Valiela said that she thinks that the 2000-foot gap is sufficient argument for more real data, rather than modeling. She said that while she has a lot of confidence in the technical capabilities of AFCEE and Jacobs Engineering, in this case, the original 8.6-ppb detection of EDB, a very serious chemical, leads her to believe that hard data would be useful. Ms. Valiela also clarified that in making this statement, she is in no way saying that she thinks a fifth extraction well is needed. She said that she thinks that needs to be judged on its own merit after data from the new monitoring well become available and other factors are considered.

Mr. Dow noted that detection levels at MW-603 are higher than at MW-1036, and increase again at MW-503; therefore, it seems to him that there actually are data gaps between MW-1036 and MW-603, and MW-1036 and MW-503. He said that he thinks it would be useful to have a model with greater predictive capacity if these difficulties could be resolved, and the easiest way to do that would be to add more monitoring wells. Mr. Dow also said that he believes that the need for further monitoring and the need for further extraction should be two separate discussions. However, to make an informed decision, he thinks more monitoring wells are needed.

Mr. Judge said that it is his opinion that the conservative approach would be to install an additional monitoring well in order to remove all doubt about the speed at which the plume is traveling and its contaminant concentrations. Then, based on data from that well, decisions can be made with respect to an additional extraction well, which might or might not be needed. Mr. Judge commented that to make decisions without data is risky, and he encourages everyone to go after those data.

Dr. Bacigalupi noted that there’s been discussion about the vertical migration of the plume and pointed out that the screen at MW-603A is set at –84.32 feet mean sea level (ft msl), and the screen at MW-503 is set at –86.79 ft msl, which is a difference of three feet. He mentioned that a different plume caused problems when it flowed under the extraction system, and he is concerned that there could be similar problems with FS-1 without an appropriately screened monitoring well at Flight Path Road. Dr. Bacigalupi also stated that he believes it would be possible to build a system at Flight Path Road, similar to the one on Hooppole Road, which would not affect the environment because it would be buried and would run up the middle of the road and onto the base. He also said that at the least a monitoring well there would ensure that nothing’s being missed, and he again mentioned the issue of screening depths.

Mr. Smith stated that screening depths at all of the earlier wells were a concern that was considered as the data gap investigation went forward. He mentioned that MW-1037, which was drilled to bedrock, was installed in line with MW-503. He also noted that wells along Flight Path Road were considered early on. However, because of difficulty with access, those locations were moved to the south, at what are now MW-1037 and MW-1039, in order to provide monitoring across the breadth of the plume, and to monitor the northern zone.

Mr. Harding asked if an additional monitoring well at Flight Path Road would have three screen settings. Mr. Smith replied that the hole would be drilled to bedrock and monitored every 10 feet from the water table to the bottom in order to establish the number and location of screen settings. Mr. Harding stated that, after reviewing all the information, he would like to see more data come out of the 2000-foot area, after which any larger issues could be addressed.

Mr. Coggeshall noted that he appreciates having received all of the information pertaining to this issue. He then stated that he thinks that AFCEE has designed a system with adequate extraction and monitoring, and enough information is available to move forward with that design. Mr. Coggeshall said that, from his point of view, it’s not necessary to add another monitoring well.

Ms. Crocker asked if AFCEE would support modifications to the system if it becomes apparent that additional steps need to be taken to achieve the remedial action objective. Mr. Judge questioned how that could become apparent without the additional monitoring well. Mr. Gill indicated that the need for any modifications would become apparent based on the strength of the entire monitoring network. Mr. Judge countered that any conclusions reached would lack the back-up of hard data from that northern part of the plume. Mr. Gill explained that a level of doubt always exists between two monitoring wells – whether they are two or 2000 feet apart. He added that the question is based on the totality of the evidence, whether the network is adequate to identify and respond to what is found.

Mr. Field noted that the full range of viewpoints on the need for an additional monitoring well – from "it’s imperative" to "it’s not necessary" – has been covered.

Mr. Smith stated that the installation of a monitoring well would affect property owners in the area. He also noted that individuals at the table have suggested that there is a need for more data, and then asked if this necessarily means a monitoring well. He then clarified that his question is, if a property owner were resistant to the installation of a monitoring well, whether vertical profile screening data from a location at Flight Path Road would be acceptable as a starting point. Mr. Hugus said that this is something that can be addressed at a later time, after a decision to move forward is made. Mr. Judge indicated that he thinks this is "putting the cart before the horse." He also questioned AFCEE’s objectivity when approaching property owners, given that AFCEE already has stated that it doesn’t agree with the need for an additional monitoring well. Mr. Smith replied that AFCEE’s real estate people would approach property owners. He also assured the group that he was just looking, from a technical perspective, at alternative methods to collect some additional data, other than installing a fixed monitoring well on Flight Path Road, where property owners in the past have been resistant to well installations. Ms. Sanderson remarked that she sees this as "anticipatory stress."

Mr. Field noted that it’s clear that some details will have to be worked out after a decision is made.

Ms. Sanderson stated that she has heard enough uncertainty this evening such that her proposal is that AFCEE proceed with the pursuit of installation of an additional monitoring well. Then, as issues arise down the road, the details can be addressed.

Mr. Gill stated that from what he’s heard tonight, he realizes that he needs to work toward installation of that monitoring well, and will proceed in that manner. He then reminded everyone that when AFCEE commits to installing a well, there is an entire process of obtaining access and contracting, and he will try to expedite that process as much as possible. He also noted that real estate issues are worked through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ real estate office, which is very competent.

Mr. Judge thanked Mr. Gill.

Mr. Field observed that AFCEE has committed to doing everything in its power to install a monitoring well in the northern portion of the plume. He then noted that there are two more issues to discuss, which are of particular importance to the AFCEE, the PCT, EPA, and DEP. He offered this time as an opportunity for others, who wished to do so, to leave the meeting.

Ms. Crocker objected to discussing all the remaining issues, given that two of the SMB selectmen had left the meeting, and Mr. Field had mentioned process issues between the SMB and the PCT. Mr. Field agreed that it would be inappropriate to discuss process issues involving the SMB, but suggested that the group tackle the question of final design and the PCT process.

Mr. Field stated that the Community Involvement Plan calls for one community involvement activity for 100% remedial design; that activity is a PCT meeting, or what had been called a JPAT meeting. He then suggested that the RPMs commit to presenting a final design at one PCT meeting, and then receiving feedback from the team at the following PCT meeting – thereby assuring that there would be at least two PCT meetings for putting forth a final design.

Dr. Feigenbaum remarked that he doesn’t think this is good enough, given that AFCEE and Jacobs Engineering control all the data and can present only those data that support their preferred alternative. He noted that in the past, the team was presented with mass capture rates, costs, and so forth, for several alternatives. Ms. Sanderson said that Dr. Feigenbaum seems to be referring to a pre-100% design stage, when various alternatives are still being considered. She suggested that there are two parts to capture – earlier, when a range of alternatives is under consideration; and later, when there’s an understanding of the basis of a preferred alternative.

Dr. Feigenbaum said that he has with him a thick document pertaining to the Demo Area 1 plume, and noted that the only comment being solicited from the Impact Area Review Team (IART) on the document is whether the range of alternatives is sufficient. Ms. Sanderson mentioned that the cleanup process for that plume is in a feasibility stage, where a range of alternatives is being considered. Mr. Field agreed and noted that the PCT and the public looked at a range of alternatives during the pre-Record of Decision (ROD) stage for the FS-1 plume, which is now in the final design stage. He said that citizen team members seem to be saying that they would like the opportunity to have a meeting at the 60% to 80% design stage, after which there would be at least two meetings to discuss the final preferred design. Mr. Gill stated that this sounds like the commitment that the RPMs already have made. Mr. Field commented that he is hearing a second commitment around the process regarding final design.

Mr. Field then turned the group’s attention to the issue of estimated extraction/treatment/reinjection costs for the project. Dr. Feigenbaum said that he thinks he can reconcile the two numbers that were mentioned tonight – $190,000 as the additional cost for a fifth extraction well, which he calculated, and $610,000 as the additional cost, which Mr. Smith calculated. He explained that his calculation was based on the modular system running for 7.5 years, while Mr. Smith’s calculation was based on that system running for 10.5 years. Mr. Smith agreed, and noted that there is agreement on the O&M costs as $140,000 per year. He also said that the modeling indicates that the system would have to run for 10.5 years. Dr. Feigenbaum countered that if the modeling were changed so that the system ran for 7.5 years, there wouldn’t be any difference. Ms. Sanderson commented that that type of cost difference does not tilt the scale one way or the other, and should not be a consideration. Mr. Smith added that everyone should be aware that real estate costs associated with installing a well are not included in the calculation.

Dr. Bacigalupi suggested that the cost benefits of each well site should be determined based on the percent of load that they remove. He noted that AFCEE has estimated that 50% of the load already has been removed. Mr. Smith agreed that mass removal is occurring with the pilot system in place at the bogs. He also noted that mass removal in the early years of system operation would be much stronger, after which it would become asymptotic. He said that the differences between a four-well and five-well system are very small at the tail end of the curve.

Mr. Smith stated that he thinks it’s important to understand that no trigger value for further remediation has been established for data coming out of the new monitoring well. He said that a collective understanding of all the monitoring in the northern end of the plume would be brought to bear when evaluating the need for additional remediation. Ms. Sanderson agreed that that step in the decision has not yet been made, and again mentioned the idea of "anticipatory stress."

Mr. Field thanked the participants for their hard work and adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.