Agenda Item #1. Welcome and Opening Remarks

Mr. Field convened the meeting at 6:35 PM, welcomed the attendees, and reviewed the proposed agenda and groundrules. He reported that the meeting would mostly consist of a presentation by Mr. Snyder on the Landfill-1 (LF-1) Focused Feasibility Study (FFS), the presentation would be followed by questions and answers.

Agenda Item #2. Presentation of Supplemental Report to the Proposed Response Document

Mr. Snyder stated that the focus of his presentation would be on the supplemental report associated with LF-1. He reported that the Air Force had recommended monitored natural attenuation (MNA) as an alternative for LF-1. He also mentioned that MNA had been compared to the active system of Alternative E. He noted that the Air Force was asked to prepare more detailed information about a possible hybrid alternative between MNA and Alternative E which, he explained, was contained in the supplemental document.

Mr. Snyder explained that because LF-1 was a large-volume plume that was low in concentrations, there was not a need to employ an alternative that extracted massive amounts of water. He said that for that reason, the Air Force felt that MNA warranted consideration while the design of an active alternative continued. He reported that the supplement indicated that a significant amount of MNA was taking place in the plume.

Mr. Snyder reported that the public comment period for LF-1 had been extended to October 13, 1998 and that the final decision on LF-1 would be made on October 21, 1998. He then referred to the slide entitled "Project Objectives." He said that an effort was being made to identify other active approaches for addressing the plume. Any alternative that was chosen would include aquifer restoration and the protection of Bourne wells 2 and 5. He also stated that none of the alternatives, including MNA, exceeded the maximum containment level (MCL) for drinking water.

Mr. Snyder then displayed the slide entitled "Nine Evaluation Criteria" and explained that these were the standard tools and techniques for comparing alternatives according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) process. He then briefly reviewed the ongoing and upcoming monitoring plans for LF-1, which included a final comprehensive monitoring plan to be completed after the final decision was made on the plume.

Mr. Snyder referred to the slide titled "Description of Alternatives" and noted that the first four alternatives listed had been included in the original response document. He stated that in-between alternatives were also analyzed. He explained that Alternatives 4A and 4B focused on the protection of Bourne wells 2 and 5 and consisted of an extraction treatment reinjection (ETR) system located upgradient of the two Bourne wells. Mr. Snyder then displayed maps depicting each alternative.

Mr. Snyder also displayed several maps that were based on data from 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998. He pointed out that the general outline of the plume had not changed shape over the years. He then referred to the slide titled "Plume Dissolved Mass vs. Time." He stated that the mass contaminant of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) had decreased since 1993. The model that was used to make the predictions was also used to read the data and to backtrack, which indicated that there had been a downward trend of concentrations over time.

Mr. Snyder then referred to the slide "LF-1 ‘Fingerprint’ Scorecard," which indicated decreases in the parent compounds of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) and increases in the daughter compounds. He explained that this trend meant that the plume was experiencing biodegradation.

Mr. Snyder then displayed maps depicting the predicted VOC contours of LF-1 with the implementation of different alternatives, in the years 2018 and 2048. He then referred to the slide titled "Evaluation Criteria Ranking," which depicted a table that rated each alternative under the US EPA guidelines. He also displayed the slide titled "Peak Total VOC Aquifer Concentration and Cost Summary for Remedial Alternatives in Years 2018 and 2048." He stated that each of the alternatives were in the same ballpark for peak concentrations of VOCs in 20 years and 50 years.

Mr. Snyder stated that the supplemental document explained that there was not a significant benefit in the level of concentrations of the plume whether MNA or an active system was implemented; therefore, due to cost associations, the Air Force continued to recommend MNA.

Agenda Item #3. Questions and Answers

Mr. Dow stated that the MNA projections for 20 and 50 years of VOC concentrations presumed that the process occurred at a steady state for that period of time. He asked why the Air Force believed that MNA would work in LF-1 when it had not worked at Fuel Spill-28 (FS-28). Mr. Snyder explained that FS-28 contained ethylene dibromide (EDB), which did not degrade in the same manner as chlorinated VOCs. He also said that the fuel did not travel as far as the EDB and that the migrating characteristics allowed the straight hydrocarbons to degrade rather rapidly. Mr. Dow stated that it seemed to him that if the fuels were generated near the source area that they would be more readily available and have a greater anaerobic zone for this reductive chlorinated process. He went on to say that it would seem that there would be a more intense anaerobic zone; if the EDB was going to biodegrade anaerobicly, it would have done so. Mr. Snyder replied that he would look into the breakdown process of EDB.

Mr. Seaver stated that Alternative 3D was by far the cheapest and would remove half of the contamination west of Route 28; it was a reasonably effective system. He also mentioned that the fact that the alternative could be fine-tuned at a later time made it even more appealing. He felt that the Air Force should give that alternative a higher rating. Mr. Seaver then said that a statistical view was not the only way to look at this plume. He noted that the plume was examined from a dynamical point of view during a meeting last month. At that meeting it was determined that it was likely that natural attenuation was occurring in some areas of the plume and not occurring in other areas. The northern edge of the plume was an area where natural attenuation was not happening. He pointed out that the question still remained regarding the amount of contamination that would get through in the future.

Mr. Seaver noted that, unless the Air Force could guarantee that there would not be any more contamination, he was in favor of the installation of a focused system. He also recommended the installation of another monitoring well (MW) between MW-37, at the base boundary, and MW-48, on Route 28A, where there was no data and a likely chance for contamination. Mr. Seaver also suggested that the Air Force carefully investigate the wells on 28A, MW-48, 56, and 59, and determine whether or not the contamination was declining. He stated that the bottom line was whether the military wanted to hope for the best and do nothing or be proactive.

Dr. Feigenbaum referred to the 1990 data on the decline of the total mass of the plume. He asked if the data included the daughter products as well, including vinyl chloride. He also asked what would be responsible for the reduction of the daughter products. Mr. Snyder replied that an increase of daughter products indicated biodegradation and that the daughter products themselves would also break down into the final methane products. Dr. Feigenbaum disagreed and asked if Mr. Snyder was including vinyl chloride. Mr. Snyder replied that it was a slightly different process. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that all of the assumptions were wrong because he did not believe that the daughter products degraded in an anaerobic environment. Mr. Feigenbaum stated that there had been general agreement at the US EPA conference on recirculating wells that an aerobic environment was necessary to break down daughter products. He stated that the Air Force was operating on false assumptions and added that it was no better to have vinyl chloride in the groundwater than it was to have TCE. Mr. Snyder replied that he would look into that situation.

Mr. Downs stated that there was an aerobic and anaerobic breakdown scheme for each one of the parent and daughter compounds. He explained that PCE, TCE, and dichloroethylene (DCE) broke down much slower in an aerobic environment but that vinyl chloride hardly broke down at all under anaerobic conditions. Therefore, the ideal situation was to have an anaerobic environment where the parent compounds could break down and then an aerobic environment where the vinyl chloride could break down.

Dr. Feigenbaum agreed that an aerobic environment was necessary for vinyl chloride to degrade. He stated that it seemed like a tremendous stroke of good luck for the conditions to change from anaerobic to aerobic just when needed to degrade vinyl chloride. Mr. Downs explained that there was a limited area of anaerobic conditions near the head of the plume. Dr. Feigenbaum mentioned the "warm spots" of TCE and PCE in the northern lobe of the plume and pointed out that it could not be expected that both the parent and daughter compounds would degrade there.

Mr. Downs explained that the reason that the conditions changed from anaerobic to aerobic was because the "bugs" ran out of food the closer they got to Route 28; the "bugs" were actually eating the contaminants coming out of the landfill. He reported that the "bug" population grew with its food supply. Therefore, there was a high population of "bugs" near the head of the plume and the population decreased on the other side of Route 28 where the food supply was not as plentiful. Consequently, the smaller amount of "bugs" resulted in less oxygen being used, which would result in an aerobic environment. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that Mr. Downs explanation did not make sense because the water was still flowing from the source area down. He said that if the water did not contain any nutrients, it would not contain oxygen either. Mr. Downs explained that a great deal of mixing took place and that oxygen was being added each time it rained. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that the rain remained on top of the plume and did not mix.

Mr. Hugus noted that the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) had stated that any active treatment system would disrupt the natural attenuation process by introducing oxygen into an anaerobic condition in the aquifer. He said that it now appeared that aerobic conditions were desired after the natural attenuation process happened. He suggested that an extraction fence along Route 28 would be the ideal way to introduce aerobic conditions.

Mr. Hugus then referred to the public process. He stated that AFCEE had held four to five meetings on natural attenuation in an attempt to convince the US EPA to accept MNA instead of an ETR system for Route 28, upon which the agencies had agreed a long time ago. He stated that the Air Force had asked a lot of the public by asking people to listen to justifications and different presentations of the natural attenuation philosophy. He mentioned that he had written long comments on natural attenuation and has not received any responses. He also noted that AFCEE had more than enough time to state its case on this issue and that there has been a lack of balance. Mr. Hugus remarked that every public meeting was about AFCEE wanting natural attenuation, while most people did not even know about the ETR alternative. Mr. Hugus then asked the US EPA to make a decision.

Mr. Snyder replied that AFCEE had always felt that there was a strong case for MNA at this site. He apologized for the continuance of the public process.

Mr. York stated that there was not enough vinyl chloride present in the plume to warrant a discussion. Mr. Downs agreed that he was not aware of any large concentrations of vinyl chloride. Mr. York suggested that the Air Force should come up with a better monitoring plan since it was trying to "sell" natural attenuation to the public. He pointed out that the current operating costs indicated that Jacobs Engineering would sample 40 wells per year but that funding would not be available to have anyone examine the results. He stated that the Air Force could do itself a favor by selling a good program to the public. He also said that he could not take the proposal seriously, as it stood now. He felt that while the argument for natural attenuation may be correct, it was incumbent on the Air Force to develop a better monitoring plan.

Mr. Snyder stated that he appreciated the comment. He explained that the monitoring plan that was proposed was a projection of what it might be. Mr. York questioned Mr. Snyder's sincerity. Mr. Snyder replied that he sincerely believed that the monitoring would indicate that MNA was the appropriate choice. He noted that the question would be whether the plume behaved in the manner in which it was projected. He also reported that the Air Force would react and modify the situation if the monitoring determined that another option was needed.

Mr. York stated that more monitoring had been "on the table" for quite some time. He noted that the Air Force did have a much better picture of the plume than what was available in the past.

Mr. Rasmussen of the Coalition for Buzzards Bay stated that the bay would be the eventual receptor of the plume. He added that the effect of long-term chronic exposures to VOCs in the bay was unknown. He stated that the Air Force was orchestrating a large experiment with Red Brook and Squeteague Harbors over the next 60 years in order to determine the chronic results of VOCs and their daughter products. He said that the level of uncertainty warranted the best treatment available.

Mr. Snyder stated that Red Brook Harbor had been addressed in the proposed response document. He said that AFCEE was aware that there was a need for more research on the long-term effects of low levels of VOCs.

Dr. Feigenbaum stated that it was not quite true that there was no vinyl chloride in the plume. He pointed out that there were vinyl chloride contours detectable in the plume. The amount of vinyl chloride had increased over the last few years, which was the only evidence that natural attenuation was taking place. He stated that DCE, an intermediate product, was also detected and required an aerobic environment to breakdown into vinyl chloride. He noted that the fact that there was not more vinyl chloride present in the plume indicated that the DCE was not degrading rapidly.

Dr. Feigenbaum mentioned that recirculating wells had been discussed at the last LF-1 meeting. He noted that it had been suggested that strategically placed recirculating wells would be an inexpensive alternative. The argument was that recirculating wells would introduce oxygen into the environment, thereby destroying the desired anaerobic condition.

Mr. Snyder replied that the Air Force had considered recirculating wells. He noted that there would be a problem with recirculating wells in the area west of Route 28 due to geological conditions. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that there was always a "problem" with recirculating wells. He hoped for finer analysis of the situation. Mr. Snyder replied that he would re-examine the use of recirculating wells.

Mr. Dow agreed with Mr. Rasmussen that MNA would be an experiment on the environment and that there would have to be sequential monitoring done to determine if the original prediction of the model was in fact occurring. He suggested that AFCEE set up some type of bond to ensure that the funds would be available if the MNA approach needed modification in the future.

Mr. Coggeshall stated that the daughter products, an indication of natural attenuation, were in some cases more toxic than the parent products. He said that there were still unanswered questions about the daughter products. He then said that he could accept that natural attenuation was taking place in the plume, but was concerned about the high concentration areas. He suggested that the Air Force consider a combination of the original Alternative E and MNA.

Mr. Field summarized the following concerns:

• anaerobic and aerobic zones
• daughter products
• the model
• stability of plume over time
• future contamination
• length of process
• the need for an efficient monitoring program
• long-term effects of low concentrations of VOCs in the bay
• recirculating wells

Mr. Hoda noted that some good questions had been raised, and he acknowledged that all of the answers may not be available at this time. He said that the multiple lines of evidence indicated a mass reduction of VOCs over time.

Agenda Item #4. Comments by US EPA

Mr. Ciavattieri thanked everyone for attending. He stated that the US EPA had received the supplemental draft to the FFS on September 30, 1998. He reported that the supplement was undergoing the same internal and external review process as the FFS. He noted that the experts continued to agree that, although natural attenuation may be taking place in some parts of the plume, there were too many unknowns, variables, and uncontrollables to recommend proceeding with MNA as the sole remedial response to LF-1. He noted that the supplemental report did not evaluate each alternative on its own merit but simply compared the alternatives to MNA, which he felt was a biased approach.

Mr. Ciavattieri noted that, in December 1997, the US EPA stated that it would consider modifying the selected remedy of the pump and treat system on Route 28 if the following conditions were met:

• An acceptable technical demonstration, using US EPA protocols, that MNA would protect the public health and the environment
• Acceptance by the public of any changed remedy
• A Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), conducted by AFCEE

Mr. Ciavattieri noted that the previous three goals had not yet been met. He then mentioned that he was looking forward to the NRDA report and added that the US EPA was still on schedule to make the decision on October 21, 1998.

Agenda Item #5. Comments by MassDEP (including NRDA)

Mr. Crombie stated that the Commonwealth had required that the following conditions be met by AFCEE eight months ago:

• The design of a system upon which both the US EPA and the MassDEP could agree
• The development of a sophisticated monitoring program
• The protection of the community impacted by the plume now and in the future
• NRDA

He noted that 12 months ago he had expected to see a report from the military that outlined what a regional water system might resemble. He also said a decision would not be made on LF-1 until the damages were determined.

Mr. Crombie then stated that the NRDA presentation would provide a "snapshot" of what the damages may look like at MMR. He asked the attendees to keep in mind that the presentation represented a slice of the total damages from LF-1. He then introduced Mr. John Weiss and Mr. Michael Huguenin from Industrial Economics.

Mr. Wiess reported that he had been involved in all of the major damage assessments in the country, including New Bedford Harbor, the Exxon Valdez, and, more recently, in Pittsfield. He noted that it was not his intention to review the basics of the NRDA process, as the Air Force had previously done so. He explained that he would inform the attendees of the Commonwealth’s stand and the role of the state as a natural resource trustee. He also said that he would present information on NRDA in relation to LF-1 and MMR as a whole.

Mr. Weiss then referred to the slide titled "Overview." He noted that neither the pre-assessment screen (PAS) nor the supplemental document addressed the natural resource injury. Although the PAS was done correctly, Industrial Economics felt that not enough detail was included. He did note that detailed information was becoming available.

Mr. Weiss displayed the slide titled "Components of a Natural Resource Damage Claim." He reviewed how the amount of the damages was reached. He explained that the goal of restoration was to return the resources to what was called a baseline condition, meaning the condition of the resources before the release of the hazardous substance. Mr. Weiss stated that compensation for interim loss of services was defined by what the resource should have provided, beginning with the release of the hazardous substance and continuing until the baseline condition was achieved. During that time, the public was losing the natural resource and was therefore entitled to compensation.

Mr. Weiss explained that there were certain limitations on a trustee council. He stated that the trustee council could only seek damages for injuries for resources, which were held potentially in trust for the public. The trustee council did not have the authority to collect damages for private losses. He reiterated that he was referring to the role of the state as trustee.

Mr. Weiss then referred to the slide titled "Injury and Restoration." He reported that the criteria for groundwater was straightforward. If the contaminant in the groundwater exceeded the drinking-water standard, then the groundwater was considered injured and the trustees could seek damages for the restoration and compensation. He explained that the NRDA process typically occurred after the remedial process was under way. He then said that restoration did not mean cleanup. He stated that the trustee council would examine residual injury that remained after the remediation response had been implemented. He also reported that the trustee council did not have the authority to seek damages based on human health. This case was slightly different than most because the remediation and the consideration of the natural-resource injury and damages were occurring simultaneously.

Mr. Weiss continued by stating that there was a focus on whether or not the legal response would adequately address natural resource injury. He noted that the issue with LF-1 was the uncertainty, regarding how long it would take to clean up the aquifer and what the situation would be if there were further contaminations in the future. Another consideration was biological resources and what would happen when the plume reached any surface water.

Mr. Weiss referred to the slide titled "Compensation for Interim Loss of Service." He explained that service meant the function of the resource and how the public interacted with the resource. He stated that there were two different values that went into the evaluation of the compensation, use value and non-use value. He reported that non-use value meant that the public was able to express a value for a natural resource even if it was not being used now or ever; a value for that resource still existed just because the public liked the fact that it existed or because it may be used for future generations. Non-use value was measured by how much the public was willing to pay to ensure that the resource would continue to exist in the future. In this case, the question to the public was whether it was willing to pay to reduce or eliminate the uncertainty or the risk that went along with groundwater contamination.

Mr. Weiss then displayed the slide titled "Use Value Compensation." He noted that groundwater provided the service of a drinking water supply and added that, in this case, the aquifer no longer provided potable water. The public had lost that service and would continue to experience that loss in the future. Even with an active remedy, there would still be a period of time, maybe 20 to 30 years, before the aquifer would be restored. Mr. Weiss stated that the provision of an alternate water supply was an appropriate form of compensation. He also said that the ultimate concern was the base line condition of the resource and what the resource and the service were like before contamination. He explained that it was the responsibility of the trustee to ensure that the community was being compensated for its loss while, at the same time, ensuring that no other problems were created. He pointed out that the Air Force was already addressing this issue by investigating alternate water supplies. He noted that the cost still had to be determined and that the MassDEP had only developed some preliminary numbers.

Ms. Walker asked, if the plume were contained, whether AFCEE could argue that NRDA was not necessary. She also asked Mr. Weiss what he meant by the path of the plume. Mr. Weiss replied that he had considered current populations and the location of current public and private wells, affected by contamination or not. If the wells appeared to be in the direct path of the plume, then there was reasonable probability that they would be affected at some point.

Mr. Weiss referred to the cost analysis and stated that it was straightforward and included design contingencies. He displayed the slides titled "Preliminary Evaluation of Alternate Supply Costs," which depicted the cost analysis broken down by the four communities. He noted that he was missing some information from the Town of Sandwich.

Mr. Weiss then referred to the slide titled "Summary of Damages." He explained that the $115 million summary was based on the preliminary evaluation and noted that there may be other losses that would be included in the cost.

Mr. Weiss concluded with the slide titled "State Trustee’s Initial Expectations." He stated that the trustee council would ensure that the injuries were adequately addressed. He explained that the trustee council was responsible for ensuring that the money was used to achieve the objectives of the restoration. He added that the trustee council would also consider other categories of natural resource damages.

Agenda Item #6. Questions and Answers

Ms. Walker commended the state for the presentation and said that it was just the type of information that was needed to push the issue forward. She agreed that regional water management was needed for the northern section of the base.

Mr. Dow asked if the military would receive credit for private wells that had already been hooked up to the public water supply and whether that cost of the hook-ups would be subtracted from the $115 million. Mr. Weiss replied that the trustees would have to seek money to compensate the public and explained that the amount of compensation would be based on the loss that remained. Mr. Dow also asked about the possibility of the groundwater exceeding MCLs after the remediation was completed. Mr. Weiss stated that the trustees were working closely with the response authority to address all of the concerns simultaneously and, therefore, the trustees would agree that the remedy was appropriate. Mr. Huguenin stated that injury would be present if the groundwater fell below MCLs. Mr. Weiss stated that MCLs were a common value used to determine whether injury had occurred, but it was not the only approach. Other standards could be used to determine injury.

Mr. Crombie reiterated that the dollar amount presented tonight was preliminary. He then stressed that the water superintendents were involved with the development of a water system. He also pointed out that although the state was a trustee, there was a tremendous effort between the trustees and the community to come up with the appropriate decision.

Ms. Kiley stated that the Southwest Operable Unit (SWOU) had been considered multiple plumes. She then stated that an injury was evaluated from the point at which there was discharge and noted that until the groundwater was restored to the base line condition, the injury would still be occurring.

Mr. Rasmussen stated that the plume would also affect biological resources and that the injury to those resources would be unknown. He asked Mr. Weiss if he knew of other examples of resources that had an unknown impact and how those resources had been evaluated. Mr. Weiss replied that uncertainty was not a novel concept in NRDA. He suggested that the best solution was to collect the most and best data that was available and make reasonable assumptions. Mr. Huguenin added that an aggressive monitoring program at the base boundary made sense.

Mr. Rasmussen asked if there were other examples of trustees setting up bonds up front in anticipation of a problem. Mr. Huguenin replied that he was not aware of bonds being set up for the express purpose of dealing with uncertainty. He said that most NRDA ended up in a settlement and not in a lawsuit. He said that he could not remember a situation of NRDA where uncertainty was not a part of the trustee’s thinking.

Mr. York stated that the idea of working on the remediation analysis and the assessment simultaneously was new to this project. He pointed out that asking the public how much it would be willing to pay for restoration was like asking how much it would be willing to spend on the remediation. He said that the reason that the remediation was done first was so that whatever was missed would be covered by the assessment. Mr. York stated that when values were assessed on what the public would pay to have the resources restored and then the money was put into remediation, it seemed as though the public was asked what it wanted and was then told that it could not have it.

Mr. Weiss replied that he was not asking how much the public was willing to pay for non-use values for this particular service. Mr. York stated that he was not referring specifically to non-use or use values, but rather the entire remedy issue. Mr. Weiss stated that in this situation, non-use values had an uncertainty of risk and therefore compensation was warranted. Mr. York stated that he thought that there could be a potential trade-off with the Air Force looking at $20 million in damages and $30 million to build a pump-and-treat system. He said that the Air Force could decide to take the $20 million in damages and not build a pump and treat system, and then the public would be stuck. He said that he would like to see the Air Force take the $20 million and build a pump and treat system, but that could not be done.

Mr. Huguenin replied that with MNA, the plume would get bigger and therefore the NRDA would be larger. The less that was spent on remediation meant that more would be reflected in the NRDA. This was why he felt that doing the work simultaneously was a good idea. He stated that the goal was to find the best solution for both the public and the Air Force.

Mr. York asked if it would be acceptable if the trustees decided to use the $20 million to build a pump and treat system. Mr. Huguenin replied that if the pump and treat system resulted in the best water supplies and the least expensive way to provide the services, it would be acceptable. He noted that MNA was thought to have a low price tag attached to it, however, the natural resource damage associated with it could result in millions of dollars. Mr. York agreed that doing the remediation and the NRDA at the same time was advantageous. Mr. Weiss stated that it may or may not be the best way to do it and added that there was no track record of doing it this way. He said that the trustees and the response authority recognized that they were dealing with the same issue here and were willing to work together.

Mr. Snyder pointed out that the cost of the Bourne replacement wells should not be included in the spreadsheet presented by Mr. Weiss because that money would come directly from the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). Mr. Weiss replied that he had displayed a portion of the spreadsheet. He also stated that the trustees were interested in achieving certain objectives; the dollar values were secondary. He noted that in many cases the trustees did not get the money and the responsible party ended up doing the work. Mr. Snyder also questioned the cost for the regional water district given the fact that the Standing Water Supply Group (SWSG) was working to identify the military fair share. He then asked if it was appropriate to include the operating and maintenance (O&M) cost of the Bourne replacement wells.

Ms. Kiley stated that the O&M figure did not reflect the replacement wells directly, but that there was a need to make "ballpark" assumptions of what the O&M would be considering the potential need for treatment.

Mr. Minior stated that he would like to see the breakdown of how the $9.5 million figure was reached. He pointed out that the Air Force had a legal agreement to replace two wells for the Bourne Water District; perhaps that cost should be subtracted from the $9.5 million.

LTC Lyon noted that AFCEE had said farewell to Col. Selstrom. He also said that he wanted to let everyone know that he was available and was sincere about finding the appropriate solution for LF-1.

Agenda Item #7. Adjourn

Mr. Field thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting at 9:07 PM.