Meeting Minutes

Agenda Item #1. Welcome and Introductions

Mr. Field convened the meeting at 6:37 PM and explained that the Storm Drain 5 South (SD-5 South) Public Meeting was being held to discuss the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence’s (AFCEE’s) recommendation to eliminate Alternative E. He briefly explained the meeting groundrules and reviewed the agenda. Mr. Field noted that Mr. Perry, the SD-5 South Project Manager for AFCEE, would be presenting findings and recommendations that refer back to a change in a decision made in December of 1997. The remainder of the meeting would consist of comments, questions, and answers.

Agenda Item #2. Presentation and Discussion

Mr. Perry introduced himself and stated that this meeting was being held to discuss AFCEE's recommendation to eliminate the SD-5 South treatment plant. He said that he had two objectives this evening: to present the reasons why AFCEE believes that Alternative E, the recirculating well treatment system currently proposed for the Briarwood subdivision of Mashpee, is not protective of the community; and, to engage the public in a discussion in order to understand what it wants to do with SD-5 South. He explained that the public comment period for this project started on December 29, 1998 and would continue until January 28, 1999. He noted that during this period, the public would be invited to comment on AFCEE's proposals, and on January 20, 1999, a public hearing would be held. He said that during the public hearing, AFCEE would be accepting verbal comments, and written comments would also be accepted throughout the public comment period. A decision would be announced on February 10, 1999 and AFCEE will prepare a responsiveness summary that responds to all the comments and concerns addressed throughout the public comment period.

Mr. Perry reported that AFCEE selected Alternative E one year ago. He explained that AFCEE decided that Alternative E was a prudent choice because there was a strong possibility that the SD-5 South plume could underflow Johns Pond, downgrading water resources, including Mashpee’s municipal water supply. He stated that as part of that decision it was also decided that more sampling was needed to determine how much of the plume underflows Johns Pond, how much comes into the pond, and what would happen in either case. He noted that the possibility for underflow was the strong driver for selection of Alternative E.

Mr. Perry showed a map of what the plume looked like before Alternative E was selected. (See attachment) He described the SD-5 North treatment system, and noted that it has been operational since August, 1997, producing one million gallons of clean water every two days since then. He stated that, at the time, there was a lot of debate regarding the fate of the plume as it crossed the shoreline. Mr. Perry then showed a cross section drawn from the source of the SD-5 South plume. He pointed out the break in the plume where the SD-5 North treatment plant is located and noted that the plume continues traveling south. He explained that the plume comes close to Ashumet Pond where the land drops down and explained that the plume is influenced by Ashumet Pond and is driven down.

Mr. Perry then noted the two wells along Hooppole Road and a large silt layer. He described silt as a finer grade of soil, which inhibits water flow. He noted that there was debate among many hydrologists and other scientists as to what would happen to this plume found underneath the silt. He said that they questioned whether the silt would hold the plume underneath and force it to underflow, or whether part of the plume would come up, or whether a combination of the two scenarios would occur. These were the questions that the sampling was expected to answer.

Mr. Perry showed a map, which he noted was made in the past year. He explained that the lines shown on the map indicate Jacobs Engineering sampling locations, and the dots indicate where vapor diffusion samplers were placed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). He noted that the shaded areas indicate significant hits of contamination. Mr. Perry explained that the map provides a very good indication of what the SD-5 South plume outline looks like as it upwells into the pond. He added that the monitoring wells drilled after establishing this footprint were in perfect agreement with this diagram. He also explained that wells drilled directly into hot spots showed the contamination, and wells drilled outside of the footprint never showed detections of any contaminant. He stated that, based on the combined information, it was concluded that the plume is completely upwelling into Johns Pond, with only very minor traces getting by.

Mr. Perry reported that in the southern part of the study area, the USGS detected some high concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE), twenty times higher than found in other parts of the SD-5 South plume. He said that AFCEE believes the TCE hot spot differs from the SD-5 South plume because other solvents present in the plume were not detected there. He showed an illustration of the current cross section, and noted that the silt is still there; he said that it is believed that the silt unit was encountered throughout the drilling program performed on Johns Pond. He then reiterated that it was found that the plume upwells to the pond entirely, except for trace contaminants, which also fits the model that was generated. Mr. Perry reported that AFCEE concluded that there is no risk to Mashpee’s downgradient water resources, because the plume is upwelling into the pond. He noted that the information generated over the past year was compiled into a technical memorandum, which is currently under review by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). He also mentioned that the design for the SD-5 South treatment system is still intact, although the TCE anomaly is not currently part of that design.

Mr. Perry also reported that the SD-5 North treatment plant is continuing to operate, and although the end of the SD-5 North plume has not been mapped, it is detached at the treatment plant. He also said that a separation of 300 to 400 feet of clean water between the treatment plant and the tail of the SD-5 South plume has probably been created.

M. Perry stated that the TCE anomaly is currently under investigation. He noted that it has been tracked due west from its original location on Johns Pond, to as far as Wheeler Road, and its westerly trend is still being tracked.

Mr. Perry then displayed the new map of the SD-5 South plume. He noted that its beginning is depicted with dashed lines because access to private property there has not been granted yet. While AFCEE has been unable to sample or install any new wells in that area, based on the quantities of water generated by the treatment plant, it can be inferred that a large gap is opening up in the plume. In the southern part of the plume, the current depiction indicates that the plume ends at that location in Johns Pond. Mr. Perry then asked what sense it would make if the plume upwells into the pond, and the treatment system is cancelled. He explained that if the plume were underflowing the pond and impacting downgradient water resources, it would not only increase its length and become a much larger plume, it would also become a treatment issue for Mashpee’s water supply. He stated that the fact that it is upwelling into the pond, however, is deemed to be an insufficient risk to drive a cleanup system.

Mr. Perry continued by discussing risk issues, particularly how to define "how bad is bad" when quantifying contamination. He noted that if the entire plume were placed in Johns Pond instantaneously, the drinking water standard would still be maintained in the pond, at 1/20th the drinking water level. He reported that the pond water one foot over the most contaminated part of this upwelling was sampled and came back non-detect for solvents. He then explained that the groundwater travels at a rate of approximately one foot per day. The edge of the plume is at the drinking water standard, or 5 parts per billion (ppb). The center of the plume, is 6 to 10 times above the drinking water standard, or up to 40 or 50 ppb. He noted that since the plume only moves one foot per day into the pond and mixes with the pond water, it is no surprise that even one foot above the pond bottom is non-detect.

Mr. Perry explained that there is no such thing as zero in environmental work. Even a non-detect simply implies that the analytical method could only determine that there is not a certain amount of contamination there. In the case of the SD-5 South plume, it is known that it upwells into Johns Pond, and it is known that the sampling comes up non-detect because the concentrations are lower than can be detected. He also mentioned that the detection limit for TCE, for example, is .1 to .2 ppb, which is approximately 1/20th of the drinking water standard.

Mr. Perry stated that our society has had to draw some lines to determine what acceptable risk level would be tolerated, and that is what a risk assessment is intended to do. He asked if it is known that the TCE contamination is still there, although it cannot be detected, whether that impact is sufficient to drive a cleanup. Mr. Perry stated that AFCEE believes that the construction and implementation of a treatment system, based on low or non-detect levels of contamination, would have more of an impact on the community than the actual plume itself. He said the question to be answered is, whether the treatment system would be worse than the ailment. AFCEE believes that the answer is to eliminate the treatment system.

Mr. Brandwein of Hooppole Road asked that someone explain the difference in risk between implementing the recirculating wells and letting Johns Pond become a sewer. He clarified that he wanted to know the risk to health, not the inconvenience to residents. He also said that while he understands that zero cannot be achieved, he wonders about the health risk posed by recirculating clean water into the pond versus upwelling pollution coming into the pond. Mr. Perry noted that Mr. Brandwein was asking about the risk of the treatment system to the community compared to the risks of the contamination entering Johns Pond. Mr. Brandwein said that he wanted to know the health risk for people who swallow the water, swim in the water, or fish from the water. He noted that there is one degree of risk health-wise, if the pollution is coming in untreated, and there is another degree of risk if the pollution is being treated with recirculating wells and coming in as relatively pure water. He asked Mr. Perry to quantify the different risks.

Mr. Perry replied that in order to determine the risk, it must be possible to measure some type of risk. This is accomplished by sampling and comparing the results against what are considered to be the standards, or benchmarks. For instance, the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for TCE in drinking water is 5 ppb. He noted that this is quite a conservative level and explained that TCE is no where near as hazardous as previously thought and there have even been discussions about raising its MCL. Mr. Perry explained that to compare the risk of TCE entering the pond as opposed to it not entering the pond, it would have to be possible to sample it coming in, detect it, and generate a risk number. However, sampling has been non-detect a foot over the pond bottom, right where the contaminant is entering the pond, not up on the surface where people swim, but a foot off the pond bottom, in 30 feet of water.

Mr. Perry explained that a risk assessor, knowing that there is no such thing as zero, assumes that the water concentration is 1/2 of the detection limit. This number is used to generate the risk factor. If the concentration is less than the detection limit, it is naturally believed that the risk is below the risk limit anyway. Mr. Perry reported that the risk number generated from the sampling at Johns Pond was 10^-7 or 1 in 10 million, while 1 in 1 million, is considered to be acceptable risk.

Mr. Brandwein asked Mr. Perry to identify the ppb amount. Mr. Perry replied that 5 ppb is the MCL allowable in drinking water. He explained that this means that if one were to drink 2 liters of the water per day for 70 years, and shower in the water, the chance of having some type of ill effect, such as cancer, would be 1 in a million. He said that this is the line accepted by our society, the line we draw between acceptable and unacceptable. He reiterated that it is non-detect where the plume is coming into the pond, a foot over the bottom.

Mr. Wires, a Cayuga Avenue waterfront resident, expressed concern about the TCE anomaly, or hot spot, and asked Mr. Perry to identify the concentrations there. Mr. Perry stated that the concentrations were 20 times higher than in the SD-5 plume itself. Mr. Wires inquired about plans to address the anomaly and asked if there are other pollutants in that area. Mr. Perry replied that various pollutants were being picked up, and then referred to an illustration that shows the location of the hot spot and predicted direction of the origin of the flow. He noted that it was predicted to come anywhere from the Ashumet Pond shoreline, to a midpoint between the isthmus between the two bodies of water. He reported that AFCEE has traced the TCE upstream to Wheeler Road and would continue its investigation until the source is located. When the source is determined, AFCEE will revisit the whole process and treatment system approach, taking into consideration the risk imposed by the anomaly.

Mr. Perry noted that the illustration in the handout is slightly larger than scale, to show all the sampling points clearly. He explained that water along the entire Johns Pond shoreline is upwelling as a massive unit. He also stated that there are no rivers feeding the ponds. The ponds are fed by groundwater, and Ashumet Pond, which is three to five feet higher than Johns Pond, flows down to Johns Pond. Since the TCE upwelling is found close to the shore in Johns Pond, it is surmised that the source is close and shallow. He noted that the SD-5 South plume is in deeper water, and therefore upwells further from shore. Mr. Perry referred to illustrations in the handout, which show the footprint underneath the pond bottom and noted that where the water enters into the pond bottom TCE has been detected in the pond, up to a foot above the bottom, dropping down to 0.4 ppb at one foot over the top of the upwelling. He reported that more samples will be taken to get a better idea of how fast the TCE drops down to non-detect. He added that there is a very rapid descent just within a couple of feet. Mr. Wires asked Mr. Perry to identify the depth of the water was at that point. Mr. Perry replied that the depth would vary from about 6 ½ feet to about 30 feet of water.

Mr. Field noted that the next steps are to determine the source of the contamination, the responsible party, and what should be done to remediate it.

Mr. Perry stated that some risk numbers have been generated, a screening level risk assessment was performed, and the risk assessor, Mr. Rick Sughat, was present at this meeting. He asked if attendees were interested in hearing from Mr. Sughat. Mr. Field asked Mr. Sughat to speak briefly about the information he has gathered on the associated risks.

Mr. Rick Sughat from Jacobs Engineering introduced himself, and stated that, as mentioned, it is non-detect in the pond above the plume. He reported that the risk numbers were run on the assumption that it is 1/2 of the detection level. Above the TCE anomaly plume, the maximum concentration is 46 ppb. In the core water within the sediment itself, it is about 1000 ppb.

Mr. Sughat explained that the standard EPA scenarios for exposure were used for modeling purposes. For instance, swimmers exposure assumption is 2.5 hours in the water per day, 5 days per week, for 3 months in the summer, continuing for 30 years. He stated that this model includes dermal exposure, inhalation of vapors, theoretical volatile vapors that have come off the surface of the water, and incidental ingestion, quantified as 15 milliliters per hours of swimming. Those numbers were run and the risk for 46 ppb in the surface water was about 2 in 1 million for the TCE anomaly. He reported that the EPA and public policy is that a risk factor range between 1 in 10 thousand and 1 in 1 million determines that decisions about remediation must be made. He noted that the MassDEP range begins at 1 in 100 thousand, and added that the risk of 2 in 1 million is below the MassDEP level and within the acceptable EPA risk range. Mr. Brandwein asked if it were in the range to make decisions. Mr. Field observed that the question is, if the risk is 2 in 1 million, is that in the range to make decisions.

Mr. Sughat replied that the EPA decides to assess risk, and perhaps remediate, when the risk is in that range. He noted that there are sites in this country that have had no remediation, where the risk is 1 in 10 thousand. There are also sites that have risk remediation done when the risk is 1 in 1 million. The process of deciding what to do for the remediation is based on a number of factors, including feasibility, other risks, and the risk of the remediation itself to the environment. In many places, the agencies decide not to remediate because it would tear up the wetlands, for instance.

Mr. Hugus introduced himself as a member of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Community Assistance Panel (ATSDR/CAP), and an unofficial member of the Plume Containment Team (PCT). He noted that Mr. Perry had said there was no such thing as zero, however Mr. Hugus felt that yes, there is, in that there could be zero TCE going into Johns Pond and there would be nothing to worry about. Mr. Hugus asked for verification that the hot spot had a concentration of 1100 ppb. He also that his main comment is that he does not feel AFCEE has the right to "write this off" as not their responsibility, as outside the scope of remediation, as outside of the risk range, as he is hearing now. He said that he feels that the fact that AFCEE does not know the source of the 1100 ppb does not mean that AFCEE has no responsibility to do something about it. He added that he thinks that the preponderance of evidence would indicate that the base would be the source, that the plume could be coming from Ashumet Pond, which has 1100 ppb down by the shoreline, and TCE on the western side. He commented that he does not feel AFCEE has any standing here saying that somehow the 1100 ppb hot spot can be separated off from everything else, and does not need to be discussed.

Mr. Snyder stated that AFCEE is not saying that it is not interested in the 1100 ppb of TCE, but is trying to determine its source. Hydraulically, AFCEE does not think that it is related to SD-5 South, and is trying to investigate that. If the investigation shows that the contamination is not MMR-related, AFCEE is not responsible. If the contamination is MMR related, AFCEE will accept responsibility. Mr. Snyder also noted that the current SD-5 South design does not incorporate or consider the hot spot anomaly, therefore it will have to reconsider if the decision is made to continue with that plan.

Mr. Hugus asked how long ago this hot spot was discovered. Mr. Snyder replied that results on the upwelling were first seen in August 1998. Mr. Hugus noted that AFCEE was given some time to look into this 1100 ppb area and still it does not have any answers. Mr. Snyder stated that AFCEE has done a good bit of investigation and the investigation is being completed. Mr. Hugus asked if AFCEE thinks the source is a house. Mr. Snyder replied yes, AFCEE thinks the contamination is coming from the isthmus somewhere between the two ponds. Mr. Hugus noted that there are two or three houses on the map, which could be responsible. He asked if AFCEE has knocked on doors and asked questions. Mr. Snyder replied that the ongoing investigation involves looking at groundwater samples in a pathway, following the path of the plume back up to some point where it stops.

Mr. Hugus commented that he believes that the first candidate for the source of the hot spot, is the Chemical Spill 10 (CS-10) plume. He also said that he feels that the military has historically been evasive about the whole business of what happens to plumes when they reach a pond. He noted that all the maps show a complete cut-off line where plumes hit ponds. He also said that the public has just recently been told about upwellings, which have probably been going into Johns Pond for at least 10 to 15 years. He remarked that the fact that AFCEE discovered it now, and is ready to dismiss it, does not take into account what has been going on for so long. Mr. Hugus stated that he thinks the community deserves more from the Air Force because this pollution came from the Air Force and the Air Force is obliged do something about it. He further stated that he resents the way risk management is brought in, in order to allow AFCEE to avoid its responsibilities. He remarked that AFCEE said that it would clean up the plumes and the strategic plan refers to 100% capture. Mr. Hugus stated that he does not trust the work of in-house risk management and assessment because it is indicating that there is no real problem and AFCEE does not have to take any action. He stressed that he thinks there is a need for independent people doing risk assessment.

Mr. Snyder explained that risk assessment is part of the EPA Superfund process. It is not something that was invented here or something that AFCEE is using, rather it is something done at Superfund sites. He noted that restoration of the aquifer and the plumes is a goal stated in the strategic plan and has been a goal for a lot of the plumes, balanced with the impact of these projects. That there are some balances to be made is the point of this evenings discussion. Mr. Snyder also stated that sometimes some parts of the aquifer do not warrant going after the last bit of contamination, as has been the case with several other plumes over the last two years. In this instance, 100% capture was not practical from the public’s standpoint, and AFCEE is saying that it does not believe it to be practical in the Briarwood neighborhood–the benefits do not outweigh the problems created.

Mrs. Wires commented that she does not care what the risk assessments and studies say, she wants results. She stated she wants the cleanup done, and as AFCEE has come here to do the cleanup, it should proceed. She questioned what was stopping AFCEE from doing its job.

Mr. Perry stated that there is no way it can be done. He said that if Cape Cod residents want to take control of their lives and improve the lives of their children, they need not worry about this upwelling, which can not even be detected. He also said that he does not know how many of these little TCE hot spots would be found emanating from septic systems around the pond. He remarked that there is a lot more going on at Johns Pond than just the plume.

Mr. Fields commented that when people look at the map and see the large "brown spot" , they are concerned for themselves and their children as users of the pond. He asked if Mr. Perry or Mr. Snyder could respond to that concern.

Mr. Perry stated that he would first like to take one step back. He explained that he joined the environmental group at AFCEE because he wanted to do a good thing. He chose to be an environmental engineer because he wanted to help people clean up the environment. He wanted to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem. He reported that when he was employed by AFCEE, he was given a handbook that said "find all the sites you can find, and clean them up." The ones that do not rate a cleanup, should not be cleaned up. Mr. Perry said that those are the marching orders he has been going through until today.

Mr. Perry continued by saying that he feels that the big picture needs to be considered. He noted that AFCEE can put in this treatment system and operate it, but doing so would just create the perception of safety, it would not change the risk. He said that it is a hard decision and "we are in this together." He also stated that he was here to serve the public and if the decision is made to "build this thing," he would give it his best. Mr. Perry then apologized for his outburst, and again stated he was there to serve the public.

Mr. Snyder noted that even the proposed system would not clean all of the plume, it would continue to go in this pathway to some degree. He also said, that as a Mashpee resident, he uses the town beach at Johns Pond. He mentioned that the Boards of Health sample the recreation areas during the recreational season and the only volatile compounds that have ever been detected in the water in recreational areas are boat and fuel-related compounds. He explained that while AFCEE is trying to alleviate some of the public’s concerns, it does not necessarily mean that everything would be cleaned up. He said that this is not what Superfund is intended to do, rather it is intended to do what can be done practically, and efficiently, to protect human health.

Mr. Perry asked to add one more thing. Mr. Field recommended that the discussion move along, and added that he thinks this is a difficult discussion to have. He noted that people have strong feelings and are working through some hard issues to balance all the different factors.

Ms. Walker from Sandwich introduced herself as a member of both the JPAT and the Public Information Team (PIT). She explained that the PIT tries to help the military get credible information and fact sheets out to the public, and monitors the public process. She stated that she is greatly concerned that the public process has been undermined. She noted that she believes that the decision about treatment at SD-5 South has already been made. She then read from the December 1997 Responsiveness Summary, "what decision was made to clean up SD-5 South plume. The remedial project managers from AFCEE, the EPA and MassDEP reached consensus that Alternative E best balances the decision criteria." She noted that the Air Force has already agreed with the regulators to Alternative E, to cleaning up this plume. She then read "AFCEE will expedite construction of recirculating wells along Hooppole Road, to reduce contaminant mass in the plume before it reaches Johns Pond." She said that she applauds that decision, and added that AFCEE also had to do some data gap analysis.

Ms. Walker noted that her understanding was that the data gap analysis would have three purposes: (1) to further determine restoration time of the aquifer and whether additional remedial actions are needed in the area; (2)to determine data gap for proper well placement; and (3) to determine if remedial action is needed on the southeast side of the pond. She commented that at no point was this data gap analysis to be used to back away from cleanup. She noted that the public participated, the PIT participated, and she imagined that the Technical Review and Evaluation Team (TRET) participated as well. She remarked that she feels AFCEE is going backwards and that people would say AFCEE does not listen to their needs. Ms. Walker stated that as far as she is concerned, this decision was made, and she would like to see the plume cleaned up.

Mr. Snyder replied that from AFCEE’s perspective, the purpose of the data gap work was to collect the data to understand the plume/pond interaction, (whether it was underflowing or not), which would help AFCEE to revalidate the decision. He explained that currently AFCEE is at a point where it is trying to revalidate the decision, as it is no longer believed to be a valid decision. He noted that this could have gone the other way, toward the need for more remediation, either within Briarwood or the southeast side of Johns Pond. The other intent of that decision, however, was to determine the need for the system in general. He explained that this was part of the thought process when the decision was made—this is why those three areas for data gap analysis were laid out. Mr. Snyder mentioned that some questions regarding the need for the system were raised at a public meeting at decision time last December.

Mr. Miguel Franco, the Briarwood Association President, asked what studies guided this decision. He also asked if any new studies had been done on dissipation rates. He noted that he has worked very closely with AFCEE, and feels that a question that the public would like to have clearly answered is how long AFCEE believes the SD-5 South plume will be in existence with natural attenuation. He also asked how AFCEE would address the havoc that would be caused for residents using those streets should the recirculating wells be installed. Mr. Snyder replied that the research will run between three and five years. He also stated that the plume, if left alone, would be gone in eight and ten years. He added that above the plume, in the case of SD-5 South, it dissipates right away. Mr. Snyder also noted he was mistaken earlier and clarified that the highest detection above the TCE hot spot was 46 micrograms per liter.

Mr. Mike Reinhart of Sunset Circle asked if the currently operating SD-5 North plant had the capacity to handle this and whether it would be expanded to handle CS-10. Mr. Perry replied that it would. Mr. Reinhart then asked what was in place for the southern treatment, if required. He asked if the reason for non-treatment was to provide for CS-10 at the current plant, without having to build another.

Mr. Perry replied that the two decisions are totally independent. The decision that was made was based on the fact that AFCEE sees no impact to the pond. He noted that it is known that people are not drinking the water, that town water is available, that the plume is upwelling to the pond, and that the plume is not detected in the pond water, even immediately adjacent to the upwelling. He stated that the only way to extract the plume, would be to construct a treatment system which would take several months to build and would cost several million dollars. He also remarked that the biggest problem he would foresee is the iron and lead fouling the pumps because they would be handling a lot of water. Typically the system would accumulate a lot of pollutant, because the total combined pollutant in the whole plume amounts to 2.5 kilograms, which amounts to about 1 1/2 liters total volume of solvents in the plume. Mr. Snyder, clarified that the capacity for the wells in SD-5 South would be at the well-heads, with small treatment facilities at each, rather than going back to the existing SD-5 North treatment plant.

Mr. Reinhart asked if different people would be handling that system than those already in place maintaining the wells. Mr. Snyder replied that there would be different people. He also said that these wells, as diagrammed in Alternative E, would be five or six subsurface carbon treatment wells installed below the road in Briarwood. He explained that water would come up to the well, be treated at the well, and go back in as clean water. Mr. Reinhart asked if any of the wells are in place. Mr. Snyder replied that they are not and would not be started until February - March 1999 if the decision is made to go forward.

Mr. Bacigalupi, who introduced himself as a member of the JPAT and the ATSDR/CAP, and a Briarwood resident, contested some of the diagrams and said that he thinks AFCEE is inventing new data. He noted that the information about this contaminant level, 1000 ppb in the soil, disagreed with AFCEE’s own handout. He also remarked that, according to AFCEE’s drawing, the recirculating well technology does not pump water, but pumps air into the ground, extracting the volatiles off through the air. Mr. Bacigalupi expressed his concern that the water would now be contaminated by lead or iron and that the carbon filters would not be changed for three to six months. He also stated that he feels that AFCEE is overstating the size of the vaults, as a scare tactic. He recalled that a 10 x12 foot building was supposedly going to be put in above ground during an experiment in the Briarwood Park. At that time, the engineer stated that either a 6x6 foot, or 8x10 foot vault could be installed underground with no bother to the people in the town. He further noted that Tad McCall, at a meeting of the Senior Management Board (SMB) several years ago, stated that the Air Force would clean the water. Mr. Bacigalupi said that he feels that the administration is either not telling the truth or trying to renege on promises. He commented that he lacks confidence in AFCEE’s ability to tell the public anything, as he believes its data regarding the flow charts seems incorrect.

Mr. Field asked if Mr. Bacigalupi was referring to the flow between where SD-5 South is coming from and where the anomaly is coming from. Mr. Bacigalupi replied that he was not. He then said that it was hard for him to believe that there would be a 90 degree flow angle for the majority of the forward part of the plume flowing south. He then referred to Well # 565, and noted that during periods of low water table, EDB was detected there. He said that the only source of EDB that can be confirmed is Western Aquafarm, which should convince the Air Force to put some extra wells to the west of the extraction plant. He further stated that it appears to him that Western Aquafarm may be the source of the TCE and AFCEE just does not want to admit it.

Mr. Bacigalupi then noted that the plume map drawing was eight years old, which meant that the data has not been updated in eight years, and did not reflect changes that have occurred since then. He remarked that he feels that the data given is bogus and could not be relied upon to make an informed decision. He stated that for five to seven years the Town of Mashpee and its citizens have had to pay substantially more in taxes because of the loss of property values in the Briarwood community. He added that it seems to him that AFCEE is willing to let the Briarwood community suffer for the next eight to ten years.

Mr. Field asked AFCEE to address Mr. Bacigalupi’s comment about the eight year old plume map. Mr. Bacigalupi remarked that the map being used is at least eight years old. Mr. Carman noted that the posters have been used and reused for many meetings. He explained that new maps are not reproduced for each meeting because of the expense, however, new maps are brought in as they are generated. He then referred to the updated plume shell posterboard being displayed at the back of the room. Mr. Perry asked Mr. Bacigalupi to take a look at the northern edge of the plume—he also said that the plume is actually quite a bit smaller than was previously thought. Mr. Carman showed a slide and noted that the area where the plume is changing in the northern direction is south of the SD-5 North treatment plant. Available data indicates that the area is below detect, where previously it was a higher detection. Mr. Bacigalupi commented that he does not believe there are enough wells to determine that. Mr. Carman replied that there are enough wells to know this. He noted that he would be going in there in the fall, and would confirm that there are concentrations in this area.

Mr. Field asked that the meeting move forward. He also requested a new plume map. Mr. Bacigalupi asked that updated data, maps, and technical documents under review by the agencies, be made available to the public. Mr. Field asked Mr. Carman to describe the slide he had shown. Mr. Carman replied that he had presented a map of the most recent plume shell, but it was not contoured. He also said that he knows that levels have dropped, and that overall, the entire plume seems to have gotten smaller. He also agreed to make the draft technical memo available to anyone who wanted it.

Mr. Field then asked AFCEE to address the questions about the source of the TCE, whether it was coming from the Western Aquafarm, a household, or the other side of Ashumet Pond. Mr. Perry noted that water at the water table travels in different directions than water at depth. He said that water that is sitting on the surface of Johns Pond, left to itself, will enter into the aquifer, as the gradient is starting downhill. However, water that is travelling down deep, from the north, in the case of SD-5 South, is travelling due south, which is the regional gradient. Mr. Perry explained that water at the surface of the water table and down deep would travel in the same direction. The plume is feeling the effects of Ashumet Pond, however, and rather than flowing due south, it begins to be pushed toward Johns Pond. There is upwelling at Johns Pond, so it is known that not only is horizontal water coming into the pond, but it is joining with water that is upwelling. Therefore, the speed at which that water enters and travels through the aquifer is much faster around the edge, and drops off radically in the middle. Water is coming in from all directions in concentric patterns, which is why one sees water coming in straight from the surface "here." If one were to look in water down deeper, it would be seen to be actually angling across. Mr. Perry explained that water travels in different directions at different depths, depending on what is going on around it. He added that whether or not the source of the TCE anomaly is found remains to be seen, but AFCEE will continue to follow it up.

Mr. Field asked Mr. Bacigalupi to explain his statement regarding the 1100 ppb in the sediment. Mr. Bacigalupi replied that AFCEE’s handout states that when TCE enters the environment, it does not stick to soil particles. He said that if it does not stick to soil particles, then that amount should have dissipated within a few days.

Mr. Perry explained that there may be a core of 1100 ppb running along the length of the TCE anomaly. 1100 ppb was detected at Hooppole Road, but was not seen further up, where there were hits of approximately 400 or 500 ppb. He also noted that the results are in groundwater, not sediment.

Mr. Bacigalupi said that he seems to recall that it was stated that one foot below the surface of water level, at bottom level in sediment, it was 1100 ppb. Mr. Perry replied that this is because the vapor diffusion samplers are buried in the pond bottom, where they still remain underneath the surface of the pond. As the groundwater passes through, the TCE in the water enters the samplers. In a couple of weeks, the samplers are uncovered after having been exposed to the groundwater for that period. Mr. Field suggested that other people be given the chance to ask some questions. He also said that he would try to come back to how the system may be affected by lead and iron and for more specifics on vaults.

Mr. Dow of the Sierra Club inquired about ecological risk assessment as opposed to human health risk assessment. He also asked if there were any computations of the risk of solvents relating to the health of the fish as opposed to the health of the humans who consume the fish. Mr. Perry replied that a preliminary screening level risk assessment was done, with a benchmark of 350 micrograms per liter of TCE in water—95% of all species are safe beneath that level. He noted that this is considered the most conservative benchmark, as applied to surface water and the plume itself is approximately 1/7 that value. He noted that the plume could be treated just at the surface water and it would still meet the criteria for what is considered to be water that does not require treatment.

Mr. Dow said that it was his recollection that 350 ppb is the benchmark for chronic toxicity, but does not refer to papillomas in fish, which is occurring at much lower concentrations. Mr. Snyder agreed and added that the TRET has been consulted about the occurrence of papillomas and it is believed that the papillomas are strictly virus related, and have no known relationship to VOCs. He noted that papillomas occur at other ponds on Cape Cod, and not just Ashumet and Johns Pond, therefore, there is no correlation to VOCs either through a literature search or the experience on the Cape. Mr. Sughat agreed that there is no connection in the literature search between VOCs and fish papillomas.

Mr. Dow said that he did not think this was true. He also pointed out that it was mentioned that the risk computations were done based on all the pollutants in the plume discharging instantaneously. He suggested that, given the disfigured trout in the entirety of Johns Pond, discharge with different concentrations would be a more realistic scenario, especially in the summertime, when the pond is stratified and most of the bottom waters have either no oxygen or very little oxygen. He said that where the springs come in at the bottom of the pond are the only areas where there is likely to be enough oxygen that the bottom dwelling fish would do well. He remarked that it seemed to him that these fish would actually be exposed to much higher concentrations than they would from an instantaneous plume discharge, and the area where they would be exposed would be right near the bottom. Mr. Snyder explained that that scenario was not used for the actual risk assessment. For the risk assessment, either actual detections in the surface water above the pond bottom, or at the detection limit where there was no detection were used. He said that this is the standard approach—use the detection limits, and when there is non-detect, use 1/2 the detection value, which actually provides for a slightly elevated risk.

Dr. Feigenbaum introduced himself as a member of the Plume Containment Team (PCT)and the ATSDR/CAP. He also noted that he is on the advisory board for the Boston University Cancer Study on the Upper Cape. He stated that he believes the principle has been articulated that the surface water bodies would not be used as dumping grounds for pollution that originates at Otis. He also said that he thinks that what the public is hearing today is pure pseudo-science. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that the original goal was to stop every drop of pollution going into Johns Pond, and then a compromise was struck, which involved the upper well-heads, and a significant number of recirculating wells, to catch more than the majority of pollution going into Johns Pond. He remarked that this was a qualitative judgement to no longer use the pond as a dumping ground. He then commented that he believes it is Air Force policy, to this day, to use Ashumet and Johns Ponds as the alternate dumping grounds for pollution from the base.

Dr. Feigenbaum asked for clarification of the different numbers and different units that were quoted and explained that he wanted to make it clear for the record, that Mr. Perry originally had the figure of .4 ppb above the hottest hot spot. Mr. Sughat explained that it is 47 ppb at that location, it was 4 ppb at 46.3 inches. Mr. Perry added that at one foot in the same vertical column, the ppb drop another .4. Dr. Feigenbaum remarked that the surface is probably 47 ppb. He also said that he had no idea from the samples taken what the reproducibility of these numbers are. He remarked that he thinks it is inaccurate of the Air Force to only provide the public with the number that is 1/10 of the drinking water standard, when there is another number a few inches away that is 10 times the drinking water standard. He stressed that he does not think the public is being served by only being given a number that supports AFCEE's case. He stated that the risk assessment generally indicates that the 47 ppb translates into a risk of 2 deaths per generation lifetime. Mr. Sughat clarified that the risk is two cancer cases per million. Dr. Feigenbaum asked if that rate applied to people living near that hot spot, or if it was distributed around a larger area. Mr. Perry replied that the rate applies to people coming into direct contact, via swimming, with the hot spot. Mr. Sughat added that the concentration was 46 ppb for a swimmer, swimming at that hot spot for 30 years. He added that it also includes ingesting fish meat from fish that lived in that area.

Dr. Feigenbaum then asked, if the rate is two per million, whether it is right that the EPA rate that triggers health risk assessments is only one per million. Mr. Sughat replied that he thought it was 1 in 10,000. Mr. Snyder clarified that 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 is EPA's federal risk range goal. Dr. Feigenbaum asked if this was well within reach. Mr. Snyder replied that this was an acceptable risk range goal. Within this range it may or may not be necessary to take an action. If the 1 in 10,000 risk is exceeded, some sort of action would definitely have to be taken. Dr. Feigenbaum observed that Mr. Snyder seemed to say that it is an EPA decision area. Mr. Zanuc of the EPA agreed.

Dr. Feigenbaum questioned whether it could be assumed that EPA is taking a conservative protective approach that is consistent with the circumstances—SD-5 South, the hot spot, and required remediation. He commented that he thinks Mr. Snyder has a lot of nerve to say that the TCE is coming from somebody's house, the TCE has not been tracked back to Ashumet Pond.

Mr. Snyder replied that the statement is based on the level in the aquifer. Dr. Feigenbaum remarked that AFCEE should have tracked it back and found out, instead of coming to this meeting half prepared. Mr. Snyder replied that AFCEE is in the process of tracking the TCE.

Mr. Snyder stated that AFCEE did not know about this hot spot until late August, and is now being asked to address the hot spot as part of a decision that was made last year. Dr. Feigenbaum remarked that people have been telling AFCEE what was going on between the ponds for a long time and AFCEE has been dragging its feet on getting the data.

Mr. Field reminded the participants to focus on the substance of the meeting.

Dr. Feigenbaum stated that it seems very likely, given the concentration, that the TCE hot spot is part of CS-10 that has crossed Ashumet Pond and is now upwelling into Johns Pond. Mr. Perry agreed that this is a possibility, but hydraulically, the elevation of the aquifer does not seem to support it. Dr. Feigenbaum said "if it’s coming up, it’s coming up." Mr. Perry explained that there are reasons why AFCEE believes that the TCE hot spot is not coming from any farther than Ashumet Pond. One reason is that the water temperature of a sample there suddenly went up by approximately 5°—it is believed that this higher temperature water is from Ashumet Pond. He explained that because these contaminants are found in water that has been draining out of Ashumet Pond, it is surmised that the source must be in between the Ashumet Pond bog and "this" location, which is as far as it has been tracked so far. Mr. Snyder reiterated that if it turns out that the contamination is MMR-related, the Air Force will deal with it. He noted that the current SD-5 South approach does not address it at all.

Dr. Feigenbaum said that he understands this, and added that if the military is responsible, it would make sense to amplify the recirculating well plan to capture the highest concentrations of that piece of plume at the same time. He added that he feels that the whole package should be kept together.

Dr. Feigenbaum then stated that he believes that the public’s perception of the project is that it would be highly invasive. He said that he thinks AFCEE needs to address the issue that people believe the recirculating wells will look like the pump-and-treat well systems when they will not. Mr. Snyder noted that the recirculating wells would involve sub-surface vaults. Dr. Feigenbaum reported that he and Mr. Hugus walked the entire area and observed numerous vacant lots suitable for placement of the wells. He added that AFCEE keeps saying the project will be a terrible disruption, and when Mr. Greg Taylor disagreed AFCEE took violent exception. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that he does not think there is a downside cost to the community for putting those vaults in there. Mr. Snyder explained that Mr. Taylor had started to make an insulting comment about AFCEE’s engineering ability. He noted that the vaults are not drainage structures, which Mr. Taylor is accustomed to installing, but are sub-surface rooms, or small basements, that have to go in the roadway. He also explained that obtaining access to private property can greatly extend the length of the project. The only way to meet schedule is to stay on the roads. Mr. Snyder stated that the excavation to get the vaults in place would be the disruptive part of the project. Dr. Feigenbaum remarked he still did not believe it was a big problem. He added that the roads are pretty wide there, and if AFCEE has to pay people for the inconvenience, then that should be part of the project cost.

Mr. Field asked for clarification on Dr. Feigenbaum's statements about the pilot test wells at CS-10. He asked about the degree of similarity between the recirculating wells to be installed at Briarwood to the ones installed at CS-10. Mr. Snyder replied that they are certainly similar, except for the garden type sheds used for the pilot tests. The wells at SD-5 South would be sub-surface equipment rooms, which would be placed in the vault, as part of the construction.

Mr. Carman reported that he, Mr. Perry, and other people from Jacobs Engineering and AFCEE, have been working to communicate to the residents of Briarwood what the components of construction would involve. He referred to photographs of the various elements of construction per drilling stage and noted that they show the drill rigs and numerous other pieces of equipment that have to be on-site to complete the work. He explained that these types of construction activities would be occurring simultaneously at multiple locations in the neighborhood. As there are only a few roads in and out, construction activities would have to be coordinated with the municipality and utility companies. Mr. Snyder noted that the vaults measure approximately 12 x 12 feet wide and 10 feet deep and the holes for the vaults would have to be excavated in a safe manner, in such a way that minimizes the impact to private property.

Dr. Feigenbaum stated that while he did not know the logistics, he did know that there was plenty of space out there. He suggested that if AFCEE has to pay for access, it should do so, and go off the road. eHe He added that there is a big parking lot there that he thinks should be used. He noted that the picture he had after listening to the presentation at the JPAT meeting is very different from how it appears in reality.

Mr. Perry stated that the JPAT presentation was cut short, probably in part because he reacted too strongly and lost his head, just like he did tonight. He assured the group that the only reason that he reacts so strongly is because he really does care about doing the right thing and is convinced that the Air Force is doing right by the community. He added that there are certainly various ways that the construction site can be addressed to minimize the impact. The bottom line, however, is that a 10 or 12 foot vault is big, the Briarwood neighborhood is congested, houses are close together, and power lines run up and down the street.

Dr. Feigenbaum reported that one of the findings in the Boston University study was a positive association between people who had swum in Johns Pond and the incidence of brain cancer. He noted that the incidence was approximately four times the expected values and added that there is evidence corroborating this in terms of various time periods. Mr. Perry asked if Dr. Feigenbaum was referring to the same report that indicated that one exposure to swimming in Johns Pond leads to elevated incidences of brain cancer, but more than one visit to the pond does not. Dr. Feigenbaum explained that he was critical of the way the data was broken out in the report. He noted that it was broken into three categories, which made it appear that there was a declining rate of incidence in relation to the amount of swimming. He said that the ATSDR reviewed that data and found that if one just asked the question, "did you ever swim in Johns Pond?" the answer was a four-fold increase in brain cancer. Mr. Field asked Mr. Sughat to respond. Mr. Sughat asked if it was correct that the subsequent ATSDR study did not show any connection to the community's risk. Dr. Feigenbaum replied that the second study was not a cancer study, and what he had referenced was not a study, but a health assessment that reviewed all available data. He explained that the Johns Pond data was re-examined and broken-down into two categories rather than three, and a positive association by a factor of four was found. He further noted that the second study, which was really the only study by ATSDR, was not a cancer study. It only looked at about 100 people in the Johns Pond area, therefore the probability of detecting any cancer cases at all is small.

Mr. Hugus noted that he was concerned about the follow-up on health problems, and he was also concerned about the agreements the Air Force has already made with the community. He noted that the ATSDR study of the Briarwood and Ashumet neighborhoods found elevated symptoms and illnesses of such things as bronchitis, stomach problems, and nervous system problems. He also reported that the ATSDR agreed to survey cancer incidence on the upper Cape according to the census tracts, which are small divisions within towns—the census tract for the area of Johns Pond is census tract 150, where there are several elevated cancers. Mr. Hugus reported that there was a statistically significant elevation of testicular cancer, which was 362% above state average. The brain cancer incidence is not statistically significant because it is such a rare disease, but it is elevated in this census tract. He mentioned that he recalls that a young man in Johns Pond Estates died of brain cancer last summer. He also reported that incidences of male and female colon cancer, male and female lung cancer, and prostate cancer are elevated as well. Mr. Hugus stated he feels that these elevations should be taken into account by the people doing the risk assessment.

Mr. Hugus then stated that in AFCEE’s strategic plan, dated September 1997, AFCEE promised the community immediate, sustained and aggressive action over the long term, leading to the cleanup of contamination emanating from the installation. He added that AFCEE also said in the strategic plan that the Air Force environmental cleanup program is 100% capture of all plumes above MCLs. Mr. Snyder noted that "if technically and economically feasible" should be added to that statement.

Mr. Hugus continued by saying that he draws a comparison between what is happening in Briarwood to what happened last summer in Bourne with the LF-1 plume. He said he feels that the public process involving citizen teams has taken place and everyone already agreed to recirculating well treatment for the southern half of SD-5 South. He explained that he is angry because the citizens have already taken the time and trouble to cooperate with AFCEE people and in the end they just changed their mind. He remarked that this is the same thing that happened with the LF-1 plume—a decision was made to put in a fence along Route 28 to stop that plume from going any further and the citizens compromised about the whole western half of the plume. Mr. Hugus commented that instead of sticking to the agreement, however, the Air Force changed its mind and decided to just let the LF-1 plume go, because it did not feel the levels were high enough. He noted that he believes that the risk assessments were done to prove AFCEE’s point of view.

Mr. Hugus stated that the Cataumet community felt threatened at the prospect of a huge construction project there, which would reduce their property values. He said that he feels that AFCEE will identify a section of the community that will agree with it, and go straight to that community to cut deals. He noted that he has heard before that these treatment facilities do not cause heavy impact on neighborhoods—this used to be a selling point. Now, when AFCEE does not want to remediate a plume, the treatment facilities become monstrous things with which people can be frightened.

Mr. Hugus said that he resents that the Air Force goes back on agreements, he resents that there are health problems in this community that have not been discussed or investigated, and he resents the Air Force's habit of dividing the community by finding people who will agree with it, and using them as an excuse to avoid treating plumes. Mr. Snyder commented that he resents the statement that the Air Force is backing down on decisions made about alternatives. He noted that the Air Force never agreed to anything but natural attenuation at LF-1. Mr. Snyder also stated that the SD-5 South decision was presented last winter, and video tapes from the public meeting and the JPAT meeting where this decision was announced could be provided. He further noted that the decision announcement included that data gap investigations could possibly lead to a conclusion that the system would not be required. He said that this is all forgotten, however, because nobody wanted to hear it at the time, and nobody wants to hear it now. Mr. Snyder stressed that this information was presented at decision time, and added that he resents that he is not allowed to bring it up again.

Mr. Field recommended that it be recognized that people have different interests and different perspectives. He said that he thinks people are trying to operate in good faith in terms of this tough decision.

Mr. Karson referred to Dr. Feigenbaum’s earlier mention about a statement he had made "for the record." Mr. Karson explained that a formal transcript was not being taken tonight, rather, summary meeting minutes would be prepared from this meeting. He noted that people who wish to submit comments or questions to be formally answered in writing, could do so by submitting a letter up until January 28, 1999 or attending the public hearing later this month, where oral testimony would be transcribed verbatim. He noted that tonight's meeting is informational, and informational meeting minutes would be prepared.

Mr. Greg Braun asked Mr. Perry to identify the source of AFCEE’s data, when it was collected, and how many data points went into the surface water risk calculation. Mr. Perry replied that to indicate the SD-5 South plume, the highest concentration in the plume was applied. In case of the TCE hot spot, 46 micrograms per kilogram was applied for swimmers. Mr. Braun asked if these were projected numbers, or natural data that was collected. Mr. Perry replied the 42 to 45 figure was a real water sample. He also said that over the past week, another six water samples were pulled from above the TCE hot spot and another six water samples were pulled from above the SD-5 South upwelling. Mr. Braun asked if there is some actual surface water data. Mr. Perry replied that there is. Mr. Braun said that he would be sifting through that data, as would the regulators. Mr. Braun also commented that he believes it is erroneous that the fact sheet indicates that Johns Pond water meets federal and state drinking water standards for VOCs, given that one sample, albeit from the hot spot, came back at 46 ppb.

Mr. Braun then noted that his agency was misquoted in the neighborhood notice, which read "papillomas may be unappealing for aesthetic reasons, there are no known health risks from eating fish papillomas," but should have read "there are no known health risks from eating fish with papillomas".

Mr. Braun also reported that the Town of Mashpee had collected a good deal of Johns Pond surface water data from another source, which verified AFCEE’s findings. He agreed with Mr. Snyder’s statement that all the detections were related to fuel from outboard motors. He said that there does not appear to be an immediate health risk. He also said that MDPH would be interested in seeing the surface water data and perhaps some fish data as well. Mr. Braun also mentioned, for the record, that he occasionally swims in Johns Pond.

Mr. Karson stated that the quote in the neighborhood notice, to which Mr. Braun referred, was taken verbatim from a MassDEP fact sheet.

Mr. Brandwein then showed a picture of his house and stated that he had endorsed Alternative E and still feels that it is the best solution. He noted that he had two major septic systems installed on his property and had lived through the construction, which had not made a difference in his quality of life. He said that he has lived in his home for 25 years, and asked AFCEE how it thought he feels when he hears that 30 years of swimming is enough to cause cancer.

Mr. Brandwein stated that AFCEE has not addressed his concerns regarding pets and a float that is located right in the middle of the upwelling. He pointed out the locations of his house, a neighbor, the dock, and the float, and noted that some children have been swimming in the pond for 12 to 15 years. He also mentioned that he has never seen any type of economic impact study. He asked why economic issues such as tax rates and real estate values were not addressed. Mr. Brandwein questioned why risk assessment factors alone were used to make decisions and added that he was convinced that AFCEE was making this decision based solely on its own economic concerns.

Mr. Brandwein further stated that after he reviewed all the information that was previously provided, he had concluded that Alternatives D and E were the most desirable. He said that he was willing to live with the construction and the vaults. He also stated that he remembers someone telling him that the vaults would be 6 x 6 foot, not 12 x 12, and asked if AFCEE was trying to perpetrate a fraud.

Mr. Field observed that Mr. Brandwein was willing to live with the construction impacts because he felt that the gain would be worthwhile.

Mr. Field also reminded the group that the SD-5 South public comment period is ongoing, Everything said tonight would go into a meeting summary, which is not a verbatim transcript. He added that requests for copies of the meeting summary would be accommodated. Mr. Field reiterated that a public hearing would be held on Wednesday, January 20, 1999, at this same location, when comments would be recorded verbatim, which would be answered by AFCEE in a future responsiveness summary. Responses would also be provided to comments submitted in writing during the public comment period.

Mr. Perry informed Mr. Brandwein that one would only experience the risks associated with 30 years of swimming if swimming at the very bottom of the pond, not at surface water level, or even over the top of the plume. Mr. Snyder, in an effort to explain the relevance of the risk ratios, stated that the incremental increase of cancer risk is 2 in a million. Mr. Brandwein replied that this is no consolation if you are one of the two. Mr. Snyder said that he understands, but further explained that between one in four and one in three of Americans will contract cancer in their lifetime—the incremental increase is 2 in a million over 250,000 in a million, as the norm.

Mr. Brandwein remarked that he knows enough about statistics to know that variables such as age, length of exposure, and weight are not being counted. He said that AFCEE is dealing in probabilities, which become irrelevant when someone close to you gets cancer. Mr. Perry stated that he and his daughter would continue to swim in the water, if the community would allow it. Mr. Brandwein replied that people do not swim near the hot spot, but way over, near the beach. Mr. Perry asked Mr. Brandwein if he would still be concerned about that water if the samples came back non-detect. Mr. Brandwein replied that he would and added that, as a lay person, he just does not believe it to be safe. He said that he does not think that AFCEE has presented a convincing case that the plume is going to dissipate. Mr. Perry replied that this is where he has failed.

Mr. Brandwein stated that he does not want risk to be sacrificed so that the Air Force can save money. Mr. Snyder explained that the risk assessments, and the manner by which they are conducted, are part of the Superfund process. He added that not all contaminants would be taken out of the ground. Mr. Brandwein replied that he would be happy if AFCEE took out the 70% of the contaminants that it said it would remove.

Mr. Bacigalupi stated that he has repeatedly heard that the size of the holes needed for the vaults is 6 x 6 feet. He said that the 12 x 12 foot size that was mentioned applies to the above-ground sheds that are used for experimental purposes, to do different tests. He said that it was his belief, according to the contractors who bid on the system, that 6 x 6 foot holes were required. He also explained that the wells are air pumping wells, which do not have a lot of contact with the actual water going through the filters. He said that the wells involve a recirculating pattern, and it is the air that is being recirculated. The carbon filters the air, which is not fouled by lead or iron—he said that he feels that already the public has been misinformed because while the wells may foul by increased iron, the carbon filters will not. Mr. Snyder noted that while he is unsure about the 6 x 6 foot size, it was hard for him to imagine a safe vault containing mechanical equipment and a carbon vessel, which is only 6 x 6 feet.

Mr. Bacigalupi stated that people would not be working in the vaults all the time. Mr. Snyder explained that to obtain access to remove carbon, a certain amount of space is required. Mr. Bacigalupi suggested that a compromise should be worked out, within the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. He also stated that he feels that the diagrams AFCEE presented would frighten people away from the system. He added that he thinks that AFCEE tried to put the system in the most inconvenient place possible, to make it most horrific to the members of the community. Mr. Snyder disagreed and explained that the locations were chosen based on contaminant locations and right-of-way issues. Mr. Bacigalupi replied that he thinks the vaults could be located on the edge of the right-of-way, instead of in the middle of the street, which requires blocking the whole road to install the pipe.

Mr. Field asked Mr. Carman if there is a reason why the wells are in the middle of the roads. Mr. Carman explained that the wells would be located in the middle of the road because of the overhead power lines on one side of the road and the underground water on the other side. He added that the arrangement of these pieces of equipment is to construct the facility in such a way that the activity can proceed with minimum impact to adjoining landowners. Mr. Carman then asked Mr. Bacigalupi if he remembered that the 1996 pilot test had entirely different requirements. Mr. Bacigalupi replied that at that time, Mr. Carman had indicated that when the actual system went in, it would be much smaller. Mr. Carman refuted this, and noted that he does not remember making such a statement. He also said that he felt confident that he had tried to give Mr. Bacigalupi the best information that was available at the time, but at that time, the design had not yet been done. Portions of the design have since been done to meet the scheduled objectives and commitments.

Mr. Carman continued by stating that the Air Force is not trying to hold things up, but is being honest, and working with the citizens of Briarwood to make sure that they do not have surprises. He noted that in the past there has been dissatisfaction that AFCEE had not provided enough details. When details are provided, however, AFCEE is accused of inflaming the public and fanning their fears. He also pointed out that the people of Briarwood clearly indicated that they did not want above-ground structures. He said that AFCEE was being sensitive to the neighborhood, by proposing underground structures and was being sensitive to the scheduling requirements of the project by utilizing public right-of-ways. Mr. Carman stated that AFCEE is trying to optimize our approach in the areas where it can.

Mr. Bacigalupi commented that putting all the wells between Hillside, Highland and Hooppole Roads would cause the least disruption to the community. He also suggested that wells be placed along the main axis of the plume, and a nice detour around it could be created—then the only ones who would be inconvenienced would be the residents in that area. Mr. Bacigalupi further suggested that AFCEE excavate one at a time for a three to six month period, after which the road should be resurfaced at AFCEE’s expense. He also suggested various ways of combining the treatment vaults and added that he thinks that there are many things that could be done.

Mr. Bacigalupi then made a reference to the contractors who AFCEE would be using to do the work. Mr. Perry noted that Jacobs Engineering would install the system for AFCEE. Mr. Bacigalupi remarked that Jacobs Engineering does not hold the patent on recirculating wells and AFCEE would have to hire a different contractor. Mr. Carman noted that AFCEE is not requiring Jacobs Engineering to hire a subcontractor. Mr. Bacigalupi replied that Jacobs Engineering did not have the technology to install the recirculating wells because it is patented engineering by two other companies. Mr. Carman stated that if the system does go forward, Jacobs Engineering would be happy to meet with Mr. Bacigalupi to discuss in more detail how he feels the system should be built.

Mr. Field moved to adjourn the meeting, but first identified some regulatory, contractor, and AFCEE personnel who would be available after the meeting to speak to members of the public. He also introduced the JPAT members who were in attendance as well as Ms. Vanessa Musgrave. Mr. Field reminded the group that the public hearing is scheduled for January 20, 1999, and that the public comment period would close on January 28, 1999.

Mr. Field adjourned the meeting at 8:50 PM.