LF-1 Public Workshop
Handy Hall, Cataumet
August 20, 1998 5:00 P.M.

WORKSHOP - MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION (MNA):

Mr. Sobel convened the meeting at 7:11 PM and welcomed the attendees. He explained that the purpose of the meeting was to answer any questions the public may have about Landfill-1 (LF-1). He stated that as part of the responsiveness process, questions could be submitted to the Air Force on comment forms provided and responses will be provided to all questions, unless commenters specifically request otherwise. Mr. Sobel then asked the attendees to introduce themselves, which they did.

Mr. Seaver commented that, regarding the MNA issue, Cataumet felt that what had been done a year ago and what was being done today were different.

Mr. York complimented Parsons Engineering Science and Mr. Haas, stating that they had done the best work on LF-1 yet. He also pointed out, however, that the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence’s (AFCEE) conclusion looked at the whole plume as one mass, thereby missing some important aspects of LF-1. He noted that there were areas where MNA did not seem to be working. He also stated that the data indicated that concentrations of 40 parts per billion (ppb) had moved west of Route 28 in the downgradient part of the northern lobe and asked why Parsons’ analysis was unable to predict that. He noted that the starting point for analyzing alternatives was based on seeding the landfill itself with contamination, which the model propagated downstream. The model never succeeded because one you could not find a contaminant release that resulted in contaminant levels high enough in the very downgradient part. Mr. York wondered what went wrong and what conclusions should be drawn from that.

Mr. Wiedemeier replied that Parsons had been missing a couple of key data points that Jacobs Engineering provided at the last minute. He noted that the lobes extended farther than Parsons had originally thought. He added that Parsons could recalibrate the model to generate plumes with lobes down that far. Mr. Wiedemeier explained that the error was due to what Parsons calls "data creep"; the data was all there in 1997, but then a 1998 snapshot became available; wells 105, 107, and 108 were added later.

Mr. York stated that it was clear that the model was not capable of producing the true picture the way it had been constructed. He pointed out that the cross-section shows that it is going from high concentrations in the center to lower concentrations in the fringe, but, if one drew a flow path, it would go from low concentrations to higher concentrations. He said that if Parsons did the same analysis as it did on the non-flow path, it would come up with a different decay rate. Mr. York agreed that Parsons was right that the decay rates were fast in the middle of the plume. However, he felt that was a bad explanation for the things that it did not predict, which were that the contaminants at 40 ppb were getting all the way down to the northern part of the lobe. He also said that he thought the Parsons model was misleading because it used a decay rate that was not carefully developed. Mr. York noted that he was not talking about the whole plume in general, just about the places where the model had broken down. He stated that, if the model was run with a different decay rate, it might be very low; additionally, there were other factors, such as carbon and oxygen, which also indicated there should be a low decay rate there. He suggested the possibility of a model that would predict that, in the northern lobe, the contaminants are capable of passing through much faster than the decay, resulting in 40 ppb in the village. He stated that this comes back to the basic concept that natural attenuation is working in the body of the plume, but the reason the toe comes down into the village is because there are regions where it does not work.

Mr. Haas suggested that the actual monitoring data should be used most prominently to decide whether or not there is contaminant migration. He said that as the model is constructed now, it goes from low concentrations to higher concentrations, it goes down in the northern lobe, and then around wells #48 and #56 the concentrations are higher. On either side of that, either upgradient or downgradient, not many wells have increasing concentration trends, so the model on the downgradient section near wells #48 and #56 has a 30-year half life, which is almost turning off any biodegradation. The next portion in the model is a 16-year half life. The regressions that Mr. Wiedemeier did showed a 5-year to 12-year half life, which were used to try and compensate. The numbers can be changed to 15, 18, or 20 years which may simulate that. Mr. Haas noted that the current higher concentrations are in and around well #48. He said that in order to use the model further, which he is personally not recommending, a well could be put in.

Mr. York noted that the model was used to compare the different alternatives: extraction, treatment, and reinjection (ETR) and monitored natural attenuation. He said that the modeling results indicated that there is really not much difference between the two alternatives. Because of this, the AFCEE report concluded that there was no reason to build an ETR system. However, Mr. York noted that if AFCEE was over-predicting natural attenuation, that is if there is not much natural attenuation occurring, yet AFCEE says that there is, then it would seem that there will not be anything for an ETR system to do. This analysis, despite the type of ETR system that would be installed, will show the effort to be a waste of time. In reality, however, if natural attenuation is not occurring there, and the comparison analysis was done, it might indicate that there is a reason to install an ETR system. Mr. York noted that this was why he raised the question about the analysis. He also stated that he looked through the report and could not find anything that refutes what he is saying.

Mr. Wiedemeier stated that it was important to know how Parsons came up with the biodegradation rate counts. He explained that enough data was available from close to the flow paths to approximate the rate counts. He also reported that he had given the rate count to Parsons’ Cincinnati office, where the model was calibrated. Then the mass was estimated and compared to what was indicated by the model. Mr. Wiedemeier pointed out that the calibration was off a little bit, and that a potential slug of contamination had been missed. He also said that, when total mass in the plume was considered, the model was pretty close; no model would be perfect. Mr. Wiedemeier also noted that steps could be taken to modify the model.

Mr. York stated that Parsons was tasked with providing a convincing argument that it was not necessary to go to an ETR system. Although the report claims that was accomplished, and an ETR system was not recommended, he again reiterated that, based on his interpretation, the model assumptions predicted that no contaminants got past that area, and that is not the case. He noted that he contends that MNA has been overestimated in portions of the model.

Mr. Seaver noted that AFCEE’s report stated that Alternative E is not necessary as a global average predictor of the plume, but he felt it was a big mistake to apply that reasoning regionally. He explained that it is the nature of the problem that one would never be able to have enough accurate observations that are dense enough to differentiate between models A, B, and C; it would never happen. He said that the global average behavior could be determined, but that one would never be able to predict the nature of recirculation. He said, "You just can’t get enough data." He also remarked that with a globally accurate model, which he felt the model probably is, MNA was occurring in the center, however the regions would have to be considered individually. He stated that the model and the work done have shown that Alternative E is not appropriate. However, the regional problem must still be considered.

Mr. Haas tried to clarify the concerns by pointing out different zones in Cataumet, stating if there is contamination in these zones, and it is moving, AFCEE needs to stop it.

Mr. Haas commented that he had the highest confidence in the data that AFCEE uses to determine contaminant movement. He said that AFCEE has been watching the wells and that all the wells across the flow lines show that there are stable concentrations. Well #56 shows a fluctuation, not a definitive increasing trend; well #59, downgradient from well #56, shows lower concentrations; and well #54Z had fairly constant concentrations over a 4-year period. Well #48 is a dilemma well because there are only two sampling points, 30 ppb and 62 ppb, which may be indicative of something happening there.

Mr. Haas concluded that AFCEE has a preponderance of evidence, but does not see, with real data, trends where slugs of contamination are moving. He stated that at well #48, the only way to solve the question was to collect additional samples in the future. The dilemma, according to Mr. Haas, is whether the contamination is moving, and that may be a $30 million or $40 million question; AFCEE has a preponderance of data that shows stability and some decreasing concentrations but not mass movement of the plume. Mr. Haas also noted that more data will be available after the planned resampling at well #48, which can be compared with the data collected a year ago at that well.

Mr. York stated that the trend of the wells over time was not his concern. He said that Mr. Haas, whose rebuttal was based on trend, had missed the point. He also said that if you looked not just at one or two wells, but at all the wells in the Cataumet area, and treated them as one lump data point (not a trend versus time), the contaminant levels in that area are 10 to 40 ppb consistent over time, steady, not decreasing or increasing. He questioned why the model did not predict that that would happen.

Mr. Haas explained why it would be incredibly difficult to make the model mimic that prediction. In 1945, for example, there may have been a spill or an event that created a significant amount of contamination hitting the groundwater. He explained that that high concentration of material would have moved through and would now be located in the downgradient portions of the plume.

Mr. York remarked that AFCEE's model is largely based on the idea that we can look at this plume as though it is essentially steady state and draw some conclusions from that. He noted that "steady state" means that whatever is going out or degrading in that area is also coming in and replenishing. He said that in general, things really had not changed in the short 5-year standpoint history of the Cataumet area. He had hoped there would be changes, but he does not see anything that would indicate such a change in the near future. Mr. York felt that AFCEE needs to take the conclusions it draws from the model and realize the model has a shortcoming and only use the model for appropriate situations. Mr. York felt that what needs to be examined is AFCEE’s confidence level in how well the model addresses that situation and whether the model is relevant to the conclusions that are drawn from it in that particular region of the plume.

Mr. Haas commented that it is understandable that the model had a hard time predicting those results for several reasons, two having to do with the decay rates and sensitivity studies. He noted that this model was a first pass, in which the attempt is made to get the big picture of the whole thing, which is not necessarily the regional picture. He also said that in his point of view, at least in a 5-year time scale, it is essentially steady state. He explained that, upgradient, it looks like there is enough to replenish that; it is flushing out and it might make sense to try to stop that from continuing to happen.

Mr. Seaver questioned how the 40 ppb in that region and downgradient got there. He said that AFCEE's explanation is an historical event that occurred that is no longer available and will not happen again. He noted that it is known that the groundwater is moving, that it is up to 200 ppb upgradient, and that if it is moving downgradient, something has to happen to it. He then noted his belief that advection is much more important than natural attenuation in some areas. He also noted his belief that advection is occurring and that there should be a highly focused ETR system to contain that. He suggested two or three wells an order of magnitude smaller, designed to contain the 20+ ppb contour of the plume, and gave three reasons as justification for the modified ETR system: (1) dynamically, because of advection; (2) legally, because agents would still have to inform their customers that a toxic plume is in the area; and (3) socially, because people are going to think, with natural attenuation, you have simply picked up and walked away and done nothing. For those three reasons, he felt it would be advisable to do something highly focused and scientifically correct, an ETR system.

Mr. Seaver stated that he had not looked at the details of the southern lobe yet, only at the northern edge of what he calls an "advection corridor" which goes from the source area down to 568. He also reported that last year there was a very large protest in Cataumet because of the threat of a massive construction project in the village. Therefore the notion of putting in a construction center in the village was no longer being considered because there would be too much damage and more harm would be done than good. He further stated that if the problem was just the 40 ppb warm spot in the village of Cataumet, then nothing would be done and the Cataumet residents would just live with it. He also mentioned that he believes that well #48 will still have 40 ppb ten years from now.

Mr. Haas suggested that another meeting, or meetings, be held to discuss relevant areas in light of the criteria that Mr. Seaver had just outlined and whether an ETR system would solve those problems. He noted his concern about elevated concentrations in two spots in Cataumet Village and added that if that contamination is moving, AFCEE needs to stop it. Mr. Haas explained that AFCEE needs to identify the "trigger", or the information that would suggest that the contamination is moving or not moving. After that, AFCEE could find areas where an ETR may be indicated, target one, and then go through a comparison to determine if it will achieve some of these objectives that were just identified and whether it would be scientifically sound.

Mr. Sobel asked if the residents of Cataumet were open to this kind of follow-up discussion.

Mr. York replied that the community goes through this once a year. He also noted that Mr. Haas had just proposed what AFCEE said it was going to do a year ago and the community had hoped this would have happened between then and now. He also pointed out that if AFCEE is willing to listen to the community, it now has the input it needs. He noted that he has donated a lot of his time to this project and is not paid to do so. He said that AFCEE has the information; it knows the community’s concerns and questions. He added that it is difficult to go through this and be told once again that more meetings are required. Mr. York expressed his concern that the same thing will happen, another year will go by, and AFCEE will say what it should have done, what it said it was going to do last year.

Mr. Haas stated his belief that more discussion is needed. He said the "trigger" would be if AFCEE finds an area in this plume where there appears to be some contaminant movement. This would mean concentrations increase in wells and that the mass or contaminant physically moves. It would mean that MNA, which can be quantified via advection, is more than the natural biodegradation. Mr. Haas explained that if AFCEE were to look at the data statistically and conclude that concentrations are stable or coming down, or the contaminants in the wells in that area are stable and are not moving, then AFCEE would probably not design a system. He said that the bottom line is that there needs to be more discussion so that if the statement is made that contaminant concentrations are stable and contaminants are not moving, there will be agreement by all parties. Mr. Haas added that the bottom line would be whether or not to implement an ETR system.

Mr. Sobel asked Mr. Haas if he would be bringing more information into the discussion than he had already provided.

Mr. Haas pointed out that AFCEE took flow lines starting from one point to another point and looked at biodegradation rates; AFCEE could shorten those flow lines up. He stated the bottom line is that the contamination does not stream directly high, medium or low; there are little pods of contamination there, and perhaps they need to be treated separately.

Mr. York commented that stable means "steady state," not "not moving" as Mr. Haas claimed. He felt that, after the next sampling round, once again there would be the same technical questions that had not been addressed previously. He noted that the decision for the plume treatment was reached in December 1997, and the decision was an ETR system with a fence that extends all the way across the plume. He added that the requirement of the Air Force was to demonstrate, with a convincing, scientifically verifiable, supportable argument, that MNA would do as good a job as an ETR system. He pointed out that unmonitored natural attenuation has been going on since 1947, and that clearly there are contaminants present that natural attenuation has not taken care of. Mr. York commented that the Air Force was tasked to demonstrate what MNA is capable of doing, to analyze that to the best of their ability, and to come back with a recommendation based on that. He stated "the ball is in the Air Force’s court" to demonstrate that MNA is as good as ETR, even for that portion of the plume. For the Air Force to come back and say "it's stable" is not a scientific argument, because transport processes could still be going on.

Mr. Seaver asked Mr. Haas if AFCEE is hesitant to build an ETR system because it is not convinced that advection is bringing contamination to the system.

Mr. Haas replied that AFCEE does know advection is occurring and that it plays a different role in the movement of contaminants throughout this plume. He stated that his hesitancy is that the big pumping system could have been evaluated in detail. He also noted that AFCEE looked at the focused ETR systems in a screening level process. He explained that some of the most aggressive systems do not drop concentrations dramatically and do not remove a lot of plume mass. He added that, unless the system operates for 30 to 50 years, there is no benefit to creating a clean zone. He stated that his hesitancy is based on the level of remedial system performance; i.e., whether it changes the plume dramatically over time.

Mr. York asked Mr. Haas if his statement was based on the model analysis.

Mr. Haas replied that his statement was based on the actual monitoring data.

Mr. York stated that there is no monitoring data to tell us what an ETR would do. He then asked AFCEE if it could run such a model to satisfy that question. He commented that AFCEE should run a detailed modeling analysis, not at a screening level, to answer the question. He stated that AFCEE has not proven this and added that AFCEE should show the model details.

Mr. Sobel asked Ms. Collins, a Cataumet resident, and Mr. Seaver, also of Cataumet, if they had anything else to say.

Mr. Seaver noted that the CCA submitted its comments on a draft document that had a lot to do with plume contaminants. He said that there is currently not the kind of backyard involvement, that existed last year, to generate the interest at this time. He also remarked that MNA is "differential calculus" to most people. Mr. Seaver then stated that he believes the document is a legitimate representation of the people of Cataumet.

Mr. Haas stated that AFCEE could go ahead and redo the model. However, he recommended against using a model as the only means of evaluating whether or not a focused ETR system exhibits the desired performance measure. He explained that the way to evaluate if a blob of contamination is moving and is not going away in a reasonable period of time is to look at concentrations in those areas over the 8-year monitoring period; this would focus on the mass to see if contaminants are really moving and identify those areas of higher concentration. Mr. Haas asked the citizens if they really wanted to "go heavy" into a model and use that for decision-making, or if they wanted to pick areas where concentrations are too high, the contaminants are apparently moving, and where MNA or biodegradation is not playing a sufficient role; in other words, where there is advection.

Mr. Wiedemeier asked what course of action was going to be good enough.

Mr. York replied that the ideal model would answer the question being asked of it, the question being "what is the effect of this ETR system?" He stated that the model predicts that the ETR system does not make a difference because decay rates are too fast in that area. He also noted that the data has been collected and that the manpower and technical knowledge are available. Mr. York complimented Mr. Haas and Mr. Wiedemeier's work. He also stated that he did not want this to result in another year of indecision; he said that someone will have to decide whether or not to build an ETR system and that it will not be possible to please everyone.

Dr. Feigenbaum stated for the record that the Plume Management Team had already gone through the public process on this subject. The team spent many hours evaluating different models, and essentially, at the request of the Cataumet residents, agreed that, for social reasons, there would be no treatment system east of Route 28. He added that there is a strong determination in the upper Cape community that surface water bodies not be used as alternate disposal areas for toxic substances. Dr. Feigenbaum commented that AFCEE is putting on the table an extraction system that essentially defends any toxic materials across Route 28. He also stated that it has been common knowledge for many years that the groundwater is moving. A dynamic system exists here, and a system in which the groundwater is moving is not going to have stable contour lines of contamination. He commented that life just does not work that way.

Dr. Feigenbaum remarked that there needs to be an extraordinary process to ensure that contamination remains static while the groundwater moves around it. He reported that AFCEE is under a March 1999 deadline to come up with a system that meets that process, which is taking a very long time. He stated that if people still have any doubts, then the doubt has to go on the side of all the decision-making criteria that was used before, and that is to stop the plume at Route 28. He noted that it was fine if natural attenuation is helpful in reducing the kind of horsepower that AFCEE needs in that treatment system, however, this is not a situation where one can wait and do nothing. He stated to do so would be making a mockery of all the hundreds of hours already invested in the public process. He added that if AFCEE does not have the knowledge at this point, it would never have the knowledge and so it had better go with the ETR system.

Dr. Feigenbaum referred to AFCEE’s document and remarked that the chemistry of the process is not understandable. As an example, he pointed out Figure 6.3 and the line that sends chloromethane to carbon dioxide, water and chloride. He remarked that the figure is inaccurate and is not electrically balanced. He further noted that the AFCEE document is not clear as to whether or not monitoring would be done for chloromethane. He stated that when chlorine is put in water, the result is chloromethane. He also noted that AFCEE might be reducing the total solvent concentration in the water, but not the total carcinogen load. He reiterated that AFCEE’s document needs to be understandable to the community.

Mr. Hugus asked if the community will have the opportunity to discuss any changes or corrections made to AFCEE’s document before a decision is made. He suggested that a longer comment period may be needed. Mr. Hugus also stated that AFCEE’s putting significant resources into fighting for natural attenuation in order to save money has become a national issue. He also commented that the whole upper Cape is involved with the LF-1 issue.

Mr. Willey asked if there were options for a focused system, which might result in more rapid benefits in the northern lobe. He suggested additional detailed analysis of some alternatives, with alternatives compared to project objectives and also compared against each other. He also questioned how that analysis might fit into the project timing.

Mr. Snyder replied that he does not want to be faulted for trying to save taxpayers’ money. He stated that AFCEE is looking to do the right thing.

Mr. Seaver noted that he is concerned about a $30 million system. He referred to the details of Alternative E; e.g., new roads having to be built, the piping necessary to service the system, and all the construction activity. He stated that might do more harm than good.

Ms. Hunter mentioned the possibility of the Air Force coming back with a proposal that was something less than Alternative E and asked how best to get that out to the public.

Mr. York stated that he thought what Ms. Hunter was asking was how much time would the community need to review the alternative and then furnish input on their preferences and/or suggestions. He said he had submitted documentation to AFCEE concerning these proposals and was very specific about the number of wells and their locations. He added that he would be most appreciative if AFCEE were to come back with anything close to his suggestions.

Ms. Hunter asked how AFCEE would get that to him, what the actual method would be.

Mr. York replied that ideally AFCEE would come back and say, "as we understand it, we’ll try to do a concept and flesh it out in more detail;" that would be ideal.

Mr. Haas asked Mr. York what he sent to AFCEE. He noted that he saw an e-mail that described seven to nine wells on the northern lobe across a 1,000-foot area, and eight to ten wells on the southern lobe, approximately 20 gpm (gallons per minute) per well.

Mr. Seaver explained that the concept is to contain 20 ppb, not 5 ppb. He said that the missing key there is advection. He also noted that he had looked at the cross-sectional area and compared that with a cross-sectional area of Alternative E.

Mr. York stated that, if MNA is chosen, the chances of the contingency plan being pursued, in reality, will not happen. He noted that if it is all done on the northern lobe, then people would feel happier that it could be done on the southern lobe. Mr. York emphasized that people need to sense that the Air Force is not walking away.

Mr. Snyder replied that AFCEE never walks away; it is not allowed to do so.

Mr. Seaver remarked that he did not want an ETR system put in at the hottest spot, by the water tower on Connery Avenue.

Mr. Snyder referred back to Mr. Seaver’s concept of not trying to grab the 5 ppb contour, but containing the 20 ppb. Assuming that advection only is working there, and letting concentrations below that go past the wells, he asked what goal would be accomplished downstream later; he wondered whether that goal would be reduced contamination.

Mr. Seaver answered yes. He explained that he read AFCEE’s analysis which showed that in the 5 ppb area there was an effluent from the pumps that was not treatable. He asked how AFCEE justified that. He questioned how, from a legal point of view, one would justify letting contamination above MCLs (maximum contaminant levels) go by. He said that it appears that natural attenuation is effective for the lower concentrations, however it is letting the higher concentrations go through.

Mr. Willey asked if he understood correctly that if the high concentrations west of Route 28 persisted, but there were no new contributions from the east above MCLs, it may not be warranted to put in an ETR for the northern lobe.

Mr. Seaver stated that there was TCE (trichloroethylene) at 100 ppb in the monitoring well #31 area and 20 to 30 ppb around well #108. He noted that if those things are not advecting, then AFCEE would have a CS-4 type of problem. He said that he did not want to spend millions of dollars just to pump groundwater. He stressed that advection is important in the LF-1 plume.

An attendee noted that no one had yet brought up the subject of water supply.

Mr. Seaver noted that he had spoken with Mr. Len Pinaud from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP), who said that the state is concerned about Bourne wells #2 and #5. Mr. Seaver also reported that he had stated his belief that the solution was to replace the wells, but Mr. Pinaud had said this was not necessarily the case. Mr. Seaver stated that this is a variable, because it could be a $50 million decision.

Ms. Sanderson said that she understands that the Air Force is continuing to look for alternate pumps/wells to replace wells #2 and #5. She explained that water is being sought everywhere for long-range water supply. She added that continued use or potentially expanded use of wells #2 and #5 could possibly be in the future picture. Ms. Sanderson reported that the wells are running at one-half capacity rate and have a combined capacity of 2 million gallons per day. She explained the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA’s) objective for the short term and long term is to be able to protect that capacity.

Mr. Snyder stated that there had been a consensus that there is a significant biodegradation zone in the middle of the plume. He noted that this was a good argument for what is creating the notch between wells. He also said that if the notch is there and those wells are operating, that is a good reason for the capacity to be maintained, in the northern lobe only, at 1 million gallons per day.

Mr. York asked if 1 million gallons of water per day is actually pumping out of those wells.

Mr. Snyder replied that this was the case during peak demands in the summer. He said that the pumping capacity is 2 million gallons per day.

Mr. Seaver remarked that he would like to see the wells pump at capacity for three weeks. He explained that this would show if the wells have to be protected or not.

Mr. York stated that this situation should be viewed from the point of protecting the well supply. He remarked that the focus has been on the least that could be done, which is economically driven, rather than on protection of the town wells.

Mr. Seaver commented that he had the utmost faith in Mr. Ralph Marks and the excellent job being done by the Bourne water district. He noted that the town has lost 40% of its capacity, yet the residents have not been inconvenienced.

Mr. Snyder reported that AFCEE would be meeting with the Bourne Water District and MassDEP in September to select the two wells to replace wells #2 and #5. He said that if the Air Force protects wells #2 and #5 and upgrades the system so that the extraction wells can operate at 1,200 gpm again, the wells would not be replaced again. He further noted that there is no question that AFCEE would look somewhere up north on the base. He said that Mr. Marks wants two fresh wells but has expressed concern about that part of the base and the impact area. Mr. Snyder remarked that, based on the studies conducted in the impact area, he feels that Mr. Marks’ concerns have been alleviated.

Mr. Seaver asked Ms. Collins, as a resident of the village who lives over the LF-1 plume, what she felt were possibilities for remediation of the LF-1 plume, what she would like to see done, and whether she wants a system in the village.

Ms. Collins replied that she was in favor of an ETR system if there was going to be continued contamination coming through.

Mr. Snyder stated that the agreement between the Bourne water district and AFCEE did not relieve the Air Force from its obligation to restore the groundwater. He noted that part of his mission, and part of Ms. Trudy Coxe’s obligation as groundwater trustee for the Commonwealth, is to ensure that there is clean water for future generations. He noted that the Air Force feels that this may happen naturally, and is reviewing that. He also said that, at this point, the Air Force is not sure how that will play and may need to come up with an in-between alternative. He added that the Air Force will need input from the people who are going to be affected by this plume.

Mr. York stated that, although he disagreed with certain things, he wanted to commend Mr. Haas and the engineering team on the good work they have done on the project. He said that any

engineering project must consider various solutions and noted that his comments are meant in a constructive way.

Mr. Haas stated that he appreciated Mr. York’s comments. He also noted that AFCEE had tried to keep the focused feasibility study independent, tried to do the best analyses possible, and asked for public input. He said that AFCEE looked at the best alternative to remediate the plume by asking such questions as: what will make the concentrations decrease, what will keep the plume from expanding or moving, and what will get it down to safe drinking water standards. Mr. Haas stated that in doing that, the report recommended MNA.

Mr. Haas also mentioned that AFCEE did not have up front the very specific remedial objective of creating a clean zone between Routes 28 and 28A. He explained that remedial alternatives were measured by performance in terms of containing the plume, reducing the concentrations, and accomplishing cleanup. He said that in order for him and Mr. Wiedemeier to do their jobs and look at in-between options and focused ETR systems, they have to know what the objectives are. For example, if the objective is to save Bourne wells #2 and #5 or to increase their capacities, the current ETR systems should be considered. He then explained that the current ETR systems extract low contaminated water, clean it, and reinject it into that uncontaminated, or unimpacted, zone. This saves surface water bodies from being drawn down and prevents too much water withdrawal so that the Bourne well could not go dry; it puts the water back so the Bourne wells can capture it, which is advantageous for water supply and does not exclude turning on wells #2 and #5.

Mr. Haas went on to say that if the objective was switched from trying to ensure that surface water bodies are not drawn down or that the water is put back in the region where Bourne wells #2 and #5 can operate at a higher capacity, one thing that could be sacrificed is a flushing mechanism that would accelerate the cleanup in that lower contaminated interval. If the primary objective is to get the aquifer clean west of Route 28, the design would be to extract in the lower zone and reinject there. Mr. Haas explained that the success of the project depends on the establishment of very clear remedial objectives, otherwise there is no way to measure system performance against other alternatives.

Mr. Seaver remarked that he felt there would a broad spectrum of remedial activities that would be acceptable to the residents of the village.

Ms. Musgrave recommended that the Air Force try to host a CCA meeting by September 6, 1998. There was general agreement on this among the group.

WORKSHOP - SAMPLING AND MONITORING, WATER HOOKUPS, OTHER COMMUNITY CONCERNS

Mr. Hugus commented that AFCEE’s MNA document lacked information in that no program or schedule for the monitoring side was included.

Mr. Hoda explained that the MNA schedule will be implemented when the decision is made.

Mr. Hugus stated that he can not say "yes" or "no" to something when he does not know what is involved. He said that Mr. Hoda is saying that sampling plans and monitoring schedules will not be issued until after the decision is made, however he himself feels that this should be done beforehand. He noted that he wanted to hear from somebody on the other side of the issue who knows as much as the AFCEE experts. He felt that it would be good to have such a forum for people to hear the other side of the story.

Dr. Feigenbaum again referred to figure 6.3 in the AFCEE report and noted that it contained an error.

Note: Two conversations were taking place at this time, one was a technical discussion on MNA between Dr. Feigenbaum and Mr. Hoda, the other was a discussion about public involvement and community concerns between Mr. Hugus and another party. It was impossible to discern between them.

WORKSHOP - FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY AND THE CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED

*Note: There were no participants in the room set aside for this workshop. However, Mr. Judge, a resident of Sandwich, requested the opportunity to make a comment and was directed to this room where he recorded the following:

Mr. Judge offered his opinion on the LF-1 plume and MNA. He stated that, as a member of the public and a taxpayer of the United States, he was disappointed with the way things have been going. He said that the general public would be furious if aware of the size of the plume and the fact that not one shovel has been put in the ground up to this point. He noted that the millions of dollars that may go into remediation would be taxpayers’ money, which many people believe will be misspent because of the millions of dollars that have gone into studying a plume that is on the move. Mr. Judge commented that as a layman looking at that and looking at a map of the plume, he is extremely disappointed that proactive action has not been taken, but that instead there exists a reactive stance in trying to figure out where the leading edge of the plume has been. He felt that this is a waste of the taxpayers’ time and money. He said that he understands the need to identify where the plume is, but he also stressed the need to put a shovel in the ground and get this remediation project started.

Mr. Judge further remarked that if the people in Cataumet do not want their land dug up, then it is the responsibility of the military to give up some of its property and get a well set up to start pumping and treating this. He commented that the idea of natural attenuation and breakdown is ridiculous and noted that some of these compounds will break down into even more toxic individual compounds. He stressed that dilution is not the solution and added that to let something go out to sea is passing the buck to future generations. He said that our children may have to deal with strange and mysterious fish and organisms. He then suggested that if the leading edge of the plume is allowed to go out to sea, then many millions of dollars ought to be given to the village of Cataumet for the disruption caused to the environment.

Mr. Judge commented that this is not just the military’s problem, but everyone’s problem. He added that 40 or 50 years ago when product was dumped on the ground, no one knew what damage it would do, nor did they realize that the underground aquifer was there. He explained that he was not pointing fingers at anyone, but was emphasizing that the need to get together and take care of the problem.

Mr. Judge reiterated that for AFCEE to do nothing and let natural attenuation happen is not an active stance. He remarked that AFCEE, as the "Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence", needs to start living up to its name and be excellent in its active pursuit to take care of the environment. He stressed that the idea of letting things go away and calling it "natural" is outrageous.

Mr. Judge also stated that he did not feel that this meeting’s workshop format was a good idea. He explained that meeting in small groups takes away the voice of the general public and prevents one from hearing what one’s neighbors are saying. He further noted that these comments were going into a closed room where someone is taking notes and, potentially, the comments could get lost in the shuffle. He emphasized that if the comments were in the newspaper or spoken at a public meeting, the people would be heard "loud and clear."