NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY 

convenes the 

EXPERT PEER REVIEW PANEL 

ATSDR'S HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS 

CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA 

VOLUME II 

The verbatim transcript of the meeting of the Peer 

Review Panel, held at 1825 Century Boulevard, Room 1A/B, 

Atlanta, Georgia, on Tuesday, March 29, 2005, taken by 

Diane Gaffoglio, Certified Merit Court Reporter. 

Certified Verbatim Reporters 

P. O. Box 451196 

Atlanta, Georgia 31145-9196 

(404) 315-8305
2 

C O N T E N T S

Volume II 

March 29, 2005 

PARTICIPANTS (in alphabetical order).................. 3 

OPENING STATEMENT AND INTRODUCTION OF PANEL 

Dr. Johnson...................................... 4 

HOUSEKEEPING RULES: 

Mr. Maslia....................................... 5 

OVERVIEW OF ANALYSES OF PRESENT-DAY SYSTEM 

Mr. Maslia....................................... 9 

PANEL DISCUSSION OF ATSDR QUESTIONS................... 95 

 

PUBLIC COMMENT 

 Dr. Johnson......................................148 

PANEL DISCUSSION ON FOUR CHARGES......................150 

INDIVIDUAL PANEL MEMBER RECOMMENDATIONS...............186 

CERTIFICATE OF THE REPORTER...........................203 

 

Legend of the transcript: 

[sic] Exactly as said 

[phonetic] Exact spelling unknown 

 -- Break in speech continuity 

 ... Trailing speech or omission when reading 

 written material 

[inaudible] Mechanical or speaker failure 

[microphone] Speaker is off microphone 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
3 

P A N E L I S T S

(In Alphabetical Order) 

ROBERT CLARK, Ph.D., M.S., D.E.E., P.E. 

Environmental Engineering and Public Health Consultant 

DAVID DOUGHERTY, Ph.D., M.A., M.S.C.E. 

Principal 

Subterranean Research, Inc. 

BENJAMIN HARDING, P.E. 

Principal Engineer 

Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. 

BARRY L. JOHNSON, M.S., Ph.D., F.C.R. 

Panel Chair 

Adjunct Professor, Rollins School of Public Health 

Emory University 

LEONARD KONIKOW, Ph.D., M.S. 

Research Hydrologist 

U.S. Geological Survey 

ERIC LABOLLE, Ph.D., M.S. 

Researcher 

University of California, Davis 

PETER POMMERENK, Ph.D., M.S., P.E. 

Project Manager 

AH Environmental Consultants, Inc. 

VIJAY SINGH, Ph.D., D.Sc., P.E., P.H. 

A.K. Barton Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

Louisiana State University 

JAMES UBER, Ph.D., M.S. 

Associate Professor 

University of Cincinnati 

THOMAS WALSKI, Ph.D., M.S., P.E. 

Vice President, Engineering 

Bentley Systems 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
4 

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 8:07 a.m. 

DR. JOHNSON: Good morning. Good morning, one and 

all, and I hope you all had a restful evening. Before we 

ask Mr. Maslia for any housekeeping kinds of things, let 

us welcome one of our panelists, Benjamin Harding, who had 

airplane difficulties that we've all encountered over our 

careers. But we welcome you and ask that you, for the 

record, identify yourself, your affiliation, and lastly to 

any overarching comments on the materials that you 

received from ATSDR. 

MR. HARDING: I'm Benjamin Harding. I work for a 

firm called Hydrosphere Resource Consultants out in 

Boulder, Colorado. And I think, if I had to sum up what I 

thought in an overarching sense, I would say that the work 

that's been done here is impressive. One of the things I 

think that was identified by the other panelists as well 

is that we need to deal with the issue of uncertainty and 

try to deal with that in a quantitative way, I think. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Do you know all the other 

panelists? 

MR. HARDING: The ones -- I think I've met everybody 

at this point, and some of them I knew prior to this time, 

so... 

DR. JOHNSON: Why don't we take a couple of minutes 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

and just go around; name and affiliation, please. 

DR. POMMERENK: My name is Peter Pommerenk. I'm with 

AH Environmental Consultants. 

DR. SINGH: I'm Vijay Singh from Louisiana State 

University. 

DR. WALSKI: Tom Walski, Bentley Systems. 

DR. KONIKOW: Lenny Konikow, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Reston, Virginia. 

DR. UBER: Jim Uber, University of Cincinnati. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Dave Dougherty, Subterranean 

Research. 

DR. CLARK: Bob Clark, formerly with EPA and 

currently a consultant. 

DR. JOHNSON: And I'm Barry Johnson, School of Public 

Health, Emory University. 

Morris, do you have any housekeeping things before we 

begin today's work? 

MR. MASLIA: Just, again, to remind anyone if they've 

got their cell phones on to silence them or turn them off, 

whichever you prefer. And again, any of the audience in 

the back here, your conversation can be picked up by the 

mikes, even if you're turning to your partner. 

And one last thing, more towards the -- for the 

panelists, Dr. Johnson gave me a homework assignment last 

night and to see if we could reduce or perhaps modify the 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

questions and answers for the second day with respect to 

the water-distribution systems, and I did some of that. I 

handed Dr. Johnson a copy, and I will hand the panel out a 

copy when we get to that time so we can go through them 

and cover all of them in a little faster manner. 

I've combined a couple of them as well. So other 

than that, Dr. Johnson, that's it. Oh, the -- if you 

haven't deposited your money -- I think it's $5 for the 

working lunch. Ann is taking the money outside. Just, 

either at break, leave the money there, and they'll go out 

and get the lunch. Thank you. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. My purpose in asking 

Mr. Maslia to take another look at the list of questions 

that bear on the water-distribution systems was that these 

questions were prepared some time ago. And he and the 

agency have received some information since the 

preparation of these questions, and that led to, in my 

mind, as to whether all of those questions were still of 

importance to ATSDR, and so Morris has reduced the list in 

response. 

With regard to one housekeeping matter from the 

Chair, today's agenda shows, at 2:30, us going somewhere 

in executive session. And I gather that that was put in 

as an opportunity for the panel to sort of closet itself 

and say things, perhaps, in the absence of ATSDR staff. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

In fact, that would be the case, and we would have 

ATSDR staff there initially to answer any early questions, 

but I would then ask them to leave so that this would be a 

totally candid kind of executive session amongst the 

panelists. Do you want to maintain that or forego it and 

simply continue all of our deliberations here in a public 

forum? And it's -- really, it's up to the panel to 

decide. If you feel that need, we'll certainly do it. 

What is your preference? 

DR. CLARK: I don't have any problem with continuing 

in a public forum. 

DR. JOHNSON: Is that all right with all of you? 

Tom, is that all right? 

DR. WALSKI: It's all right with me. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Then we'll just continue 

everything here in public session. And the main thrust of 

that executive session was to finish our response to the 

four elements of our charge -- the first two, we will 

address at the working lunch -- and also to craft some 

kind of communique. 

I asked Mr. Maslia last evening: What did they have 

in mind as a communique? And his response was: answers to 

the four charges -- and which we will be preparing as we 

deliberate this morning and early this afternoon. It 

seems like we can fill their desire for a communique and 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

still doing it all in public session. 

I also want to alert you that, at the end of our 

deliberations and toward the end of the meeting, I'm going 

to ask you the same kind of question I asked you at the 

beginning, and that is: To what extent are you comfortable 

with the, what I call, the protocols that are in play, 

both for the groundwater modeling as well as what you're 

going to hear today, the water-systems modeling? To what 

extent are you comfortable? Are you -- do you have 

something you'd like to sort of red letter as key advice 

to the agency? But just where are you personally in 

regard to what you have heard over these two days? 

And I don't foresee us taking any kind of vote as a 

panel. If you feel that that is a need, then let's 

discuss it. But by voting as a panel, it seems to me to 

put ATSDR in a bit of a bind and potentially in a bit of a 

bind. But they will have the benefit of your advice and 

your recommendations as individual panelists. Does anyone 

have a problem with the panel, as a body, not taking some 

kind of vote on whatever, but speaking as individual 

panelists? Tom? 

DR. WALSKI: I'd prefer it that way. It's pretty 

hard to get this group to agree. I mean, Jim and I 

probably agree only about 10 percent of the time. So, you 

know, it'd be pretty hard to get a unanimity on the panel 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
9 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

here, so... 

DR. JOHNSON: Well, let the record note that Jim is 

smiling (laughter). 

DR. UBER: It's one of the 10 percent. 

DR. JOHNSON: Which is part of the 10 percent. Well, 

if the panel feels, during the course of the day, to 

change some of these suggestions, put it on the table, and 

we will -- you will debate it as a panel. Okay. 

Having said that, Morris, are you ready to begin 

updating us on the water -- water-distribution systems 

work? 

MR. MASLIA: I sure am. Good morning, everybody. 

And, Claudia, if we can go ahead and get the overview. My 

plan this morning is to give an overview of the approach 

for the water-distribution systems analysis and then go 

into the field testing that we've done to date on the 

present-day water-distribution system. 

And as Bob said yesterday, if you would like to 

interrupt me or ask a specific question that's either 

among the questions that are there or that comes to you as 

you're sitting here, please, feel free to do so, and I 

will try to answer it as best as I can. 

We're all familiar with Camp Lejeune, hopefully, 

since yesterday. And again, for the present-day system, 

we've got two water-treatment plants and three waterNANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
10 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

distribution systems. Just for your information, our 

piping network has been obtained from data from autoCAD 

drawings, supplied by Camp Lejeune, as well as through 

their contractor, AH Environmental, also provided update 

on piping. And so it's a combination of information as 

well as us being in the field and observing pipes or 

asking questions and then defining or having updated 

information. 

This was three bullets of activities based on the 

entire project, and we talked about, obviously, yesterday, 

the groundwater issue and some uncertainty issues which 

still apply to today's issues. But specifically, today 

we'll look at the potential distribution of contaminants 

and water-distribution system models. 

And let me just add, as Dr. Johnson mentioned, I 

updated the questions and answers that were prepared a 

while back based on discussions yesterday. I have not 

done that with the slide material. So some of the slide 

material is presented, not in contradiction to your advice 

or your recommendations, but that they were prepared a 

while back. And I thought I would just go with what I had 

prepared. 

So again, the chronology, which we still need to 

refine in some areas. The one point to make here: What is 

called Montford Point is presently known as Camp Johnson 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
11 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

and is not in existence. It's serviced by the Holcomb 

Boulevard water-treatment plant. And the treated water 

goes to Tarawa Terrace ground storage, and that's where it 

gets its water from. 

Basically, we were asked by the epidemiologists to 

quantify historical exposures for the purpose of their 

epidemiologic study. And so our understanding is that if 

the systems are completely separated, completely isolated 

so you've got three hypothetical systems, they may or may 

not have any contamination in them. Then, of course, 

there would be no need to reconstruct the actual 

distribution system historically, but rather we could 

assume everyone would receive the concentration based on 

our groundwater modeling and the source concentration 

there. 

Based on information and talking to people to date, 

we know at some point in time the distribution systems 

have not been operated independently or they have been -- 

a better word is there's been interconnection. Exactly 

how long that is -- we've heard information on two weeks. 

We see other data that suggests maybe there were other 

opportunities for the systems to be interconnected. 

And so if that's the case, then we need to do some 

amount of historical reconstruction to try to get a 

distribution of contaminants within those systems. So, as 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

we see it, there are two approaches that we can do the 

historical reconstruction. One, we can use historical 

water-distribution system data. This is data from the 

operators of the system, cycling on and off of wells, 

flows, demands. 

And what we have at least found out, in looking for 

information, is that the information is sporadic. We 

talked about that yesterday. There may not be any record 

specifically of cycling on and off pumps and wells, or it 

may not be in existence. Bob, did you have a question? 

DR. CLARK: Morris, yeah, I had a question on the 

exposure assumptions. You're assuming that everybody who 

lives in a system that's independently operated is 

exposed. Is that -- 

MR. MASLIA: That would be the assumption. 

DR. CLARK: Okay. But you're not taking into 

consideration things like activity patterns -- 

MR. MASLIA: No, we're not. 

DR. CLARK: -- water use by individual homes and 

that sort of thing? 

MR. MASLIA: No. If you wanted to take into account 

water use, you would either have to have some measured and 

demand-type consumption metered information. At a Marine 

Corps base -- and I assume at military bases in general -- 

they do not meter household water. We'll actually address 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
13 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that issue a little later on. 

And as such, they do have -- they've got a production 

meter, obviously, that's going into the system. But 

because in some of the areas you've got mixed use -- say 

bachelor housing, industrial. In some of the areas, it's 

more homogeneous: total family housing. We would have to 

derive some estimates of that. 

DR. CLARK: Right. To the degree that you can't do 

that, then that constitutes the potential for error, I 

guess, in the analysis. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. 

DR. CLARK: I guess Frank's not here. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. Just as an example, when we were 

doing the work in Dover Township, we had quarterly billing 

records for about 18 or 24 months, and we -- I shouldn't 

say "we." I should say Jason put those in about a month 

at a time, putting them in by hand. 

But they came out. Where we measured, I think it was 

7.5 million gallons per day on a test. With the billing 

records, we came out with 7.6 million gallons. It was 

right on target. We don't have that here, and it's -- so 

that's just not available. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. It did bring up the question of 

historical data. One other source of data is the fact 

that a lot of the engineering work of this in the past was 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
14 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

done by the NAVFAC IINCOM LANDTIV up in Norfolk, and I 

haven't heard them mentioned. Have you gone up through 

their records? They may have some of the construction 

drawings and such that, you know, they don't have on post. 

Have you talked to -- 

MR. MASLIA: Let me talk about that now. We do have 

historical maps as paper copies, for example, as housing 

areas expanded. We've actually got maps that tell us how 

many more housing units were added and which pipelines may 

have been added. So from that standpoint, we do have that 

information. 

When we've requested, even on the present-day system, 

say, for example the network drawings, if they haven't had 

them at Camp Lejeune, they have provided it to us either 

through their consultant. So I assume if they haven't had 

it on base, they have gone up to the Navy facilities. We 

are aware of that. 

And, in fact, on the -- which I'll get to a little 

bit later on. There was a conservation study done. Most 

-- the Air Force and Navy developed this waterconservation analysis, a software. And we requested it, 

and I know they did go up to Norfolk to get a copy of 

that, and actually, that has formed the basis for some of 

our demand categorizations. 

So I'll get into that, but we are aware of that, and 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
15 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

when needed, we have requested. But we personally have 

not gone up there, but we know someone has gone up there 

because of the information that we've obtained. Were 

there any more questions up to that? 

The second approach then would be to -- in view of 

the lack of historical system operation-type information 

would be to develop a present-day system model; gather 

information on that; and then to, what we're calling, 

deconstruct the present-day system: removing pipes as they 

were removed historically and using the assumption that 

we've been told that they pretty much operated in a 

similar manner; use that to do the historical 

reconstruction or come up with historical systems. 

Now, one of the differences we have found out, say, 

from the Dover Township work, unlike in Dover Township 

where the network changed at least every year, whether it 

was addition of pipes, hydraulic devices, or anything, 

there were just major -- major changes in only certain 

years at Camp Lejeune, for example, the addition of the 

Holcomb Boulevard plant. 

From what we've been told and what we've been able to 

find out, they were not adding sections of pipelines every 

year. That sort of simplifies, at least from a simulation 

standpoint, where we can make some larger assumptions. So 

that we have found out, and that is why it's still very 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
16 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

important on this chronology, especially with the Holcomb 

Boulevard plant. If we can isolate that, the start-up, to 

a month and year, it will really help us out. 

And this is the approach up to this time that we have 

been using to calibrate models for the present day; get a 

description of the present-day system in terms of 

operation, in terms of facilities; and then work backwards 

in time. The information in front of you and what we've 

been -- and what we'll discuss today, obviously, is just 

for the present-day system, but hopefully, we can also get 

some recommendations for the historical process. 

And that's -- so the approach then would be to apply 

the output from the groundwater model, and that's the 

arrival of the concentration from the contamination. And 

then either apply it to Approach A or B, and as I've 

indicated, we have gone with Approach B because of the 

lack of information from the historical standpoint. 

And that's really a summary of just the approach and 

what has prompted us to take the next step, which is the 

field investigation and understanding the present-day 

system. So at this point, are there any other specific 

questions on the approach? Yes. 

MR. HARDING: Morris, there's a high-level question 

from the -- going up to 20,000 feet and looking at this 

for a minute -- and this may have been answered yesterday 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
17 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

since I wasn't here, so if it has, just somebody can take 

me aside and tell me. 

And that is, is that in the event that or in the case 

where -- these systems were served by a single source 

essentially. The wells were blended into a watertreatment plant and then supplied to the distribution 

system, and those systems weren't interconnected then. 

MR. MASLIA: Did you say were or were not? 

MR. HARDING: Were not. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. 

MR. HARDING: So we have independent systems served 

by a single point of supply. Then there's really no need 

for any hydraulic modeling in my understanding of the kind 

of etiology of disease that we're talking about. That is, 

these are chronic, relatively chronic, exposures. 

So we don't need to know, with a precision of hours 

or even days, when a particular change in concentration 

occurred. So the calculation -- essentially, everybody in 

the system -- when you're averaging things out over a 

period of days or weeks, even that level is going to get 

the same exposure, the same concentration. 

So it seems to me useful to divide this up into the 

epochs, if you will, of the configuration and operation of 

the system and decide, you know, what the benefit is of 

doing the detailed hydraulic modeling and when that 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
18 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

benefit's going to accrue because at some point -- at some 

points, all of the uncertainty, all of the arithmetic 

basically falls on the groundwater model. And at that 

point, once you know the answer to groundwater model and 

the dispatch of the wells -- if you've got innumerous 

wells, you have to understand that. Once it gets into the 

water-distribution system, it's no longer an issue. 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

MR. HARDING: So we need to understand that to 

evaluate when you need to do, if you need to do, the 

detailed hydraulic modeling. 

MR. MASLIA: Our assessment of the water-distribution 

system, when we were first presented with the opportunity 

to assist our division of health studies on the 

epidemiologic study, was really twofold. 

First -- and I am not an epidemiologist. I'm 

probably stepping way off on the plank here. But my 

understanding on some of the health outcomes, birth 

defects, there -- they need some information in the first 

trimester, and I think it's Days 21 through 28 or 

something like that. So they had mentioned some daily 

information to us, and Dr. Bove is not here. But David -- 

MR. HARDING: I probably can answer most of the 

questions. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
19 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

COURT REPORTER: I need you to get to a mike then. 

MR. MASLIA: Oh, okay. But that was our -- one of 

the questions we had: Could we provide that kind or at 

least on a monthly, looking at trimesters, monthly 

information. Yes. 

DR. CLARK: I wonder if everybody would be equally 

exposed because you're talking about people that may -- 

you know, women who might be in the household, maybe, 18 

hours, 16 hours a day with children as opposed to some of 

the active-duty Marine Corps personnel who are off doing 

something else. 

And I wondered if maybe one way to deal with that is 

sort of at least classify the percent of population who 

falls into these different categories who would have 

different kinds of exposures. 

MR. MASLIA: We started down that road, and that's in 

the next presentation or at least classifying building 

types and the type of people that occupy those buildings, 

and that's in the next presentation. And it significantly 

varies by the different distribution systems, which I will 

get into. Can I put that off until we get to that? Yes. 

DR. UBER: A point of clarification on that, Morris: 

You're only concerned with exposure of pregnant women. 

MR. MASLIA: That's right. 

DR. UBER: Okay. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
20 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MASLIA: That's right. Women who were living in 

family housing, although they may have given birth off 

base -- 

DR. UBER: Right. 

MR. MASLIA: -- because of the movement of the 

enlisted people, the enlisted men, as they took them off 

base. Some of them may have been pregnant during the 

period of exposure while on base, but then actually 

delivered off base. 

DR. UBER: Right. Understood. But the exposure 

characteristics, the only ones that are of interest, are 

the exposure characteristics of the women who had been on 

base at some time during first trimester of pregnancy. 

MR. MASLIA: Well, there's Dr. Bove. Let him -- 

DR. BOVE: What happened? 

MR. MASLIA: The question was: We're interested in 

exposure of women, pregnant women, who were on base during 

only the first trimester. 

DR. BOVE: No. That's for -- well, we have different 

outcomes, end points. I know I have to get to the mike. 

COURT REPORTER: You knew what was coming. 

DR. BOVE: Right. We have different end points, and 

for neural tube defects and oral clefts, it's the first 

trimester. But we -- because there's some uncertainty as 

to when the first trimester occurs, we asked for three 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
21 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

months. We asked for the whole year before birth. And 

we're looking at the first six months of that period: 

three months before conception, three months after 

conception because we don't know when conception really 

is. 

So we leave a wide window there to determine exposure 

for oral clefts and neural tube defects. For childhood 

leukemia, since we're not sure -- all the evidence seems 

to indicate prenatal exposure, but we'll ask up to one 

year of life for childhood leukemia and non-Hodgkin's 

lymphoma. 

DR. UBER: Okay. So you're interested in exposure of 

women three months before pregnancy, three months -- 

DR. BOVE: Conception; yeah. 

DR. UBER: -- three months before conception -- 

DR. BOVE: Yeah. 

DR. UBER: And three months after conception and -- 

DR. BOVE: Because we're not sure when conception is. 

Right. 

DR. UBER: Right. And you're interested also in 

exposure of infants. 

DR. BOVE: For childhood leukemia -- 

DR. UBER: Childhood leukemia. 

DR. BOVE: -- up to one year of life. 

DR. UBER: But you're not concerned about exposure of 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
22 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

active-duty military personnel who are -- I assume -- I 

can't remember when that changed, but I assume at that 

time they were all men. 

DR. BOVE: Well, we're going to be asking in -- their 

drinking-water exposure, no. No. We're concerned about 

other exposures. We ask a wide range of questions in an 

interview. Okay. 

DR. UBER: But not for drinking water? 

DR. BOVE: But not for drinking water, no. I think 

-- we're really focused on that period of time. Okay. 

MR. HARDING: Before you go -- 

DR. BOVE: Uh-huh. 

MR. HARDING: Morris, let me just express -- 

DR. BOVE: I'm not going. I'll just sit there. 

MR. HARDING: -- my understanding of how this system 

worked and ask a question of both you and Dr. Bove, which 

is if we go back to the case that I mentioned where we've 

got a situation where the system operated independently 

and was served by one water-treatment plant, then what 

came out of that water-treatment plant was going to reach 

a home in a matter of days or hours. It would stabilize, 

given the operation of the tanks. But if we look at the 

historical data we have a few snapshots here that Tarawa 

Terrace -- Tarawa Terrace. How do you pronounce it? 

MR. MASLIA: Tarawa. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
23 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HARDING: Tarawa was pretty stable. The 

measurements that were made in the water-distribution 

system were all within the factor of one and a half of 

each other, it seems like. So my question here is that 

when the wells -- the major influence then on the 

concentrations in that system would be the cycling of the 

wells if the wells in a well field had different 

concentrations, which might occur three times a day, it 

sounds like, something like that. 

So for the question for the doctor, assuming that 

that understanding is correct, then is: What is your time 

resolution in terms of understanding? What kind of 

averaging period is acceptable to you, and what kind of 

precision on estimates of, ultimately, human intakes that 

you're going to make as you assess this? What's your 

level of precision both in terms of time and magnitude 

that's -- that you need to have in order to make a 

conclusion? 

DR. BOVE: I mean, we're going to be looking at 

monthly averages. So to do that, you know, at least 

weekly levels. But beyond that, it's unclear. It depends 

on how variable the data is, I guess. If there are spikes 

during a particular time, we'd like to capture that. But 

if there aren't, then, I guess, by week -- week by week. 

COURT REPORTER: Can you go to the mike, please? 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
24 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. BOVE: Yeah. A week-by-week assessment might be 

sufficient. You know, again, it depends on whether there 

are peaks. If, in fact, the water that went in was also 

the first water that came out and there are times when 

there are slugs going out so that the tap-water sample 

data that we have is not really reflective of what might 

occur at the tap. In other words, you know, it may be 

more closely related to that -- what's in that well 

actually than -- so there would be, instead of 200 parts 

that would bring us to the max, something like ten times 

that much, we'd like to be able to capture that, I guess. 

MR. HARDING: That's what my question is: Are we 

dealing here -- orders of magnitude differences? 

DR. BOVE: Well, that would be. Yeah. 

MR. HARDING: Right. But, I mean, but you have to 

answer this because you've expressed this desire to have a 

six-month window of time. And the question is: Do you 

need to know what happened in the third week of that sixmonth window with a precision of two or ten or what? This 

is what I'm getting at. 

MR. MASLIA: Frank was asking me what we did in Dover 

Township. And in Dover Township, they used the same 

approach of going zero months, not knowing when 

conception, to twelve months and the -- 

MR. HARDING: What was the resolution? 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MASLIA: And the resolution -- the model was 

obviously run on an hourly basis, and then we gave them an 

average over a month period. 

DR. BOVE: But we weren't -- we weren't -- we weren't 

dealing with concentration at Toms River. 

MR. MASLIA: No. No. 

DR. BOVE: I mean, it's a tough question because 

there's so much uncertainly. I'm more concerned about 

being able to just determine whether people were exposed 

or unexposed, given some of the things you'll probably 

hear today about the confusion concerning interconnections 

and so on. 

But if we can get that straightened out, if I can be 

confident that the people I'm calling unexposed are 

unexposed and vice versa, which we -- I produced something 

that -- yesterday that was handed out to you, which goes 

over what happens when you can't -- when you have some 

errors in just doing that and the impact on the odds 

ratio. If we can get that far, then I can live with 

weekly -- certainly, weekly estimates about resolution. 

MR. HARDING: Well, but you're talking about were 

they exposed in a given week or were they exposed in a 

six-month period? Yes or no? What is it -- 

DR. BOVE: Oh, no. We -- there's two things here. 

MR. HARDING: It's like two things here. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
26 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. BOVE: I'm sorry. Well, I'd like to know on a 

weekly basis whether they were exposed. Okay. 

MR. HARDING: Whether they were exposed. 

DR. BOVE: Yeah. 

DR. LABOLLE: You mentioned at Toms River, you didn't 

-- you weren't concerned with concentrations. Are you 

concerned with concentrations here, or are you concerned 

with mass? 

MR. MASLIA: Let me explain here. It's not that -- 

that's probably a misstatement. It's not that we were not 

concerned with concentrations at Toms River. We had an 

alphabet soup of concentrations that we could not separate 

out or get any definitive single contaminant like PCE 

coming through there because of the way that the 

contamination that was on hand. 

So because of that -- and this, again, was part of 

the epidemiologic protocol -- it was decided by the 

epidemiologist to go after the proportionate amount and 

look at comparative amounts of water that each of the 

study cases received or did not receive from various well 

fields. 

DR. BOVE: What I meant was it wasn't part of the 

analysis. 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: Okay. 

DR. BOVE: It wasn't part of the exposure assessment. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
27 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. CLARK: Morris, I had a question. This may be 

going -- it may address this later on, but is -- have you 

looked at degradation by-products in the distribution 

system at all? 

MR. MASLIA: No. 

DR. CLARK: Okay. Because you've got a lot of cast 

iron pipe that's going to build up a very heavy biofilm. 

You've got lots of biological activity going on, and I'm 

wondering, with the residence times that you have, if it 

might not be something you might want to take a look at. 

I assume when the analysis was done -- a lot of them were 

done with just plain -- just the same volatile analysis 

using GC, right, back in the early days when they were 

looking for THMs primarily? 

MR. MASLIA: That's what the lab notes indicate, and 

that's what they indicate why they could not do it when 

they saw the presence of the volatile or -- 

DR. CLARK: So there's no attempt to try to, say, 

differentiate to see if vinyl chloride might be possibly 

one of the by-products or not? 

DR. BOVE: Well, they did later. 

MR. MASLIA: Later on, they did. 

DR. BOVE: Not during the THM -- not during the THM 

analysis; no. 

DR. CLARK: I know there's a period there when there 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
28 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

were no methods, the standard EPA methods were volatile, 

so... 

DR. BOVE: The issue's about biofilms and residence 

time. 

MR. MASLIA: Not in Tarawa Terrace. It was -- 

DR. BOVE: Okay. So there's no dead-ends. 

DR. CLARK: But there were -- do you know what -- 

well, you know what the residence times are in terms of 

the system tanks and so forth; right? 

MR. MASLIA: From what we found from our field 

information -- and I'll present that -- 

DR. CLARK: Okay. 

MR. MASLIA: -- the residence times may be forever. 

DR. CLARK: Okay. 

MR. MASLIA: And that's one of the issues that we 

discovered -- or when I say we discovered, during our 

field testing -- and I'll get to that. I'll just jump to 

the punch real quick. Even though we allowed fluoride to 

dilute over a two-week period down to .1 or .2 milligrams 

per liter, the tanks are still showing one or a little bit 

above after that. 

DR. CLARK: So there is the potential then for very 

long residence times, biological action, and -- 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: (Off microphone) 

MR. MASLIA: Not the -- I mean, it is. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
29 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. WALSKI: Well, but just the opposite though. 

When you had the tanks off-line, that means everybody gets 

very fresh water. The water in the tank just sits there, 

and so 99 percent of the people get water that goes 

straight from the plant to their house, which means the 

residence time on average is, you know, hours only in the 

system, not days. And the water in the tank just sits 

there. 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

DR. WALSKI: It may dribble back in a little bit -- 

MR. MASLIA: Talking about in the tanks? 

DR. WALSKI: Yeah, right; in the tanks. The tank 

water doesn't get consumed. So therefore that water is 

basically almost off-line except during a fire or 

something is the only time that water gets drained out of 

the system. So for the most part, the residence time on 

average is extremely short in a system like this. 

MR. MASLIA: Except we've seen both, both cases. And 

I'll get into that now perhaps. But we've seen in a later 

test the tanks filling and drawing, and I've got some data 

to show that. So -- 

DR. CLARK: Well, I think it depends a lot on what 

the record shows as far as tank operation is concerned. 

MR. MASLIA: So that -- again, our attempt or our 

concept was, if I can summarize this, is if we felt -- if 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
30 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

we could really understand the present-day operation, that 

would shed a lot of light on historical operations since 

we were told they were operated in a similar manner or the 

operation was in a similar manner, and that was our -- 

DR. CLARK: So it sounds like there were times when 

the residents would get water that was fairly aged. 

MR. MASLIA: There were times; yes. 

DR. WALSKI: But it would be aged in tanks though, 

not in pipes with contact with the biofilm that much. In 

the tank, you don't have much contact with the wall. 

MR. MASLIA: Right. But again, we've got data to 

show both cases or at least our interpretation of it, that 

it shows both cases. 

DR. CLARK: You still have biological activity taking 

place in the tank, too, as you know. So those are just 

some issues I thought that you might want to at least kind 

of chalk up and take a look at. 

MR. MASLIA: We'll definitely note that down. And, 

in fact, we're looking at different tank-mixing models, 

just to let you know. Are there any other questions, 

suggestions, comments, or -- because what I'd like to do 

is get into the specificity of the present-day system and 

the field testing that we've done and perhaps address some 

of the issues that have been brought up this morning and 

go from there. Is that okay with the panel? 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
31 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(No audible response) 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. Present-day system. Okay. We 

started preparing to do some field tests. Again, the 

present-day information, we had some production 

information from the utility operators, but specificity as 

far as hydraulics in the present-day system were not 

available, and we were, again, interested in ultimately 

travel times of potential contaminants. So we developed a 

field-testing program. And so we gathered information on 

pipeline locations. 

I've described how we have obtained that for the 

present-day storage tank locations; high-lift pump data; 

operational data -- I'll get into the controlling tanks in 

a minute -- and production data; and what I'm referring to 

housing data and facilities' use data, classifying the 

different building types. 

The approach was to construct present-day models, and 

we've done that for the three different areas: for the 

Tarawa Terrace, the Holcomb Boulevard distribution system, 

and the Hadnot Point. And the data that we were 

interested in gathering would be the hydraulic data, 

pressure, C-factor data for pipeline characteristics, 

operational data. This is including the controlling tanks 

and the on-off cycling of pumps, pipe-flow data, and 

travel-time data. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
32 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Primarily, our thought behind the flow data was that 

since we didn't have individual household meters and 

household consumption, if we could get an aggregate of 

small areas where the type of housing were homogeneous, 

then we could get a present-day per capita use and per 

diurnal type curves to service for that particular area, 

and that was our thought behind the flow metering. 

So as of right now, we've got three hydraulically 

independent models. We're assuming here's where the 

interconnection between Hadnot Point and Holcomb Boulevard 

are. There are two sets of valves, one here and one here, 

that are closed off. And so we've got a model for the 

Tarawa Terrace-Camp Johnson area -- 

MR. HARDING: Morris, I got an ADH -- 

COURT REPORTER: Mike please. I didn't get it. 

MR. HARDING: I'm color blind. I can't really make 

out that pointer very well. Can you just linger a little 

longer or point with your -- 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. Can I go over there and point to 

it? Will that be okay? 

MR. HARDING: That would be great. Just where the 

valves are because that's a critical issue for me. 

MR. MASLIA: Is there a pointer over here? How about 

the pointer and that way? 

MR. FAYE: Grab the radio mike. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
33 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MASLIA: Thank you. 

COURT REPORTER: Now you're getting it (laughter). 

MR. MASLIA: Is that on? 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. This is the Hadnot Point area -- 

MR. HARDING: Right. 

MR. MASLIA: -- to the south, and there's an 

interconnection valve here and one over here or a set of 

valves actually that they maintain closed for the presentday system. This area up and to here is what we're 

referring to as the Holcomb Boulevard water-distribution 

system. And then this pipe right here from the treatment 

plant provides water to the ground storage at Tarawa 

Terrace. And then based on demands and the controlling 

tank right here, that's how water is distributed within 

the Tarawa Terrace area up north. 

Previously, when we mentioned the Montford Point 

here, that was in this area over there, which is present 

day no longer in existence at that treatment plant. 

MR. HARDING: So when Tarawa Terrace was isolated, it 

was that pipe that crosses Northeast Creek there right by 

the 30, TT-30? 

MR. MASLIA: Right there. This pipeline comes over 

there. And if you cross the bridge, you can actually see 

the pipe tied or bolted underneath the bridge, the bridge 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
34 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

there. And it comes into here. So what's left -- this is 

where the original or the former Tarawa Terrace treatment 

plant was. So the pump house is still there. They've got 

four high-lift pumps there. And the reservoir, 

underground storage tank, is still there. Just the 

treatment facility is no longer there. 

MR. HARDING: Now, if I recall from the materials, 

there was a failure in that pipe due to freezing; is that 

right? 

MR. MASLIA: That, I believe -- we discussed this 

yesterday. And I believe that's this pipe right here, and 

that is information we're still trying to get some more 

definitive documentation on. It's a report that was 

written in 1991 by Geophex out of Raleigh, North Carolina. 

We've got a contract number. We have no author that's on 

it. 

We're trying to really -- and it makes a statement 

that two years prior, meaning about '89 or so, which is 

outside the study period -- but that might be some 

indication that there may have been other times that there 

may have been some interconnections, but that's some of 

the data discovery that we still need to figure out and 

find a resolution on. 

MR. HARDING: Well, there's valves on the pipe -- the 

systems are isolated or were isolated by valves; right? 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
35 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MASLIA: This system and this system were 

isolated. 

MR. HARDING: So the indication was that pipe was 

only constructed after 1985, the one across Northeast 

Creek? 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. That would be correct. 

MR. HARDING: Okay. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. In other words, because prior to 

the closing of this treatment plant, this treatment plant 

took care of this area here. So there would be no need 

to -- 

MR. HARDING: But that can't be right because 

originally Hadnot Point served the entire system; right? 

MR. MASLIA: That was before Holcomb Boulevard plant 

came into being. 

MR. HARDING: So that pipe existed from the very 

early days of Tarawa Terrace development. 

MR. MASLIA: This pipe here? 

MR. HARDING: Yeah. The pipe that crosses Northeast 

Creek. 

MR. MASLIA: That, I could not tell you. Joel, would 

you know about that? Would that pipe have existed prior 

to the -- no. 

MR. HARTSOE: Excuse me. The -- what he's talking 

about is the -- 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
36 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Microphone. 

MR. HARTSOE: At one time, Hadnot Point served the 

Midway Park area. That's up north, right there. And the 

connection that he was talking about, there's two separate 

connections between Hadnot Point and the Holcomb Boulevard 

distribution system. But, at one time, when the Holcomb 

Boulevard plant was not there, the Hadnot Point served 

only up north at the Midway Park area. It did not serve 

TT. 

MR. HARDING: Okay. And so do we have a sense that 

that pipe that crosses Northeast Creek was constructed 

after 1985? 

UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off microphone) 

MR. HARDING: Do you know when it was constructed? 

MR. MASLIA: We've probably got that information in 

our -- 

DR. POMMERENK: Like I indicated yesterday, there 

seemed to be as-built drawings from 1984. And in 

discussing a little more, there may have been a temporary 

line for some time. But, you know, this is, like Morris 

said, all not clear at this time, when this -- but it 

probably wasn't -- hasn't gone on-line, you know, before 

'84. 

MR. FAYE: Is this on? The records that we have 

indicate that that pipeline was constructed by June of 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
37 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

1985 or in that fairly short time frame and it was 

operating in June of 1985 or shortly thereafter. 

DR. LABOLLE: Is it your understanding that it was 

constructed to help mitigate the closure of -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- Tarawa Terrace? 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. There was a recognized -- they -- 

as I said yesterday, Wells TT-26 and TT-23 were shut down 

in February of '85. That -- and Lejeune immediately 

anticipated a water shortage for the Tarawa Terrace area, 

up into the spring and summer months, because of that 

shutdown. 

So they expedited this construction of this pipeline, 

to the best of my knowledge, so -- and it was -- to the 

best of my knowledge, it was supplying water from Holcomb 

Boulevard to Tarawa Terrace to supplement their existing 

supply by the summer of 1985. 

MR. HARDING: Okay. Morris, I have another question. 

MR. MASLIA: Sure. 

MR. HARDING: And so is the epidemiological study 

driven by particular individuals or time frames, or are 

you trying to establish the dose-response ratio? In other 

words, could you -- after that pipeline is in place in the 

situation in Tarawa Terrace, if the wells and the Holcomb 

Boulevard supply both served the area -- it gets 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
38 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

complicated. 

But, prior to that time, it's not complicated at all. 

The only complication is how they dispatched the wells and 

the groundwater modeling. If I understand this correctly 

-- anybody can jump in if they think I'm wrong here. But 

prior to that time, you've got a much clearer picture. 

It's not perfectly clear, but it's much clearer than it's 

going to be after that pipeline opened. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. The epidemiologic study ends in 

December of 1985. 

UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Last birth; yes. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. Last birth is December of 1985. 

MR. HARDING: It's that last -- it's that period 

from, potentially, 1984, some time in 1984, until December 

of 1985 that's going to drive 90 percent or 95 percent of 

your water-distribution effort. 

MR. MASLIA: Plus we've got the potential issue, 

which we've been asked on a couple of occasions now, about 

the interconnection between Hadnot Point and Holcomb 

Boulevard. 

MR. HARDING: I understand. I'm just trying to get 

one thing done first. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. 

DR. WALSKI: But the point is, though, that if you 

don't have enough information to know how to do things 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
39 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

without the model, running this bad raw data through a 

model isn't going to make it any better. You know, 

because the boundary conditions are what's going to drive 

the model. And so we're still in the -- you know, back to 

the fundamental principle of modeling, which is: Garbage 

in; garbage out. 

And you don't know when those things are open or 

closed. And you aren't ever going to know those things 

because we can't go back in time and ask people or check 

these things. So why model it? 

I mean, basically, you have to say that in this 

period we know they got contaminated water. At this 

period, we know they didn't get it. And this period, we 

just aren't sure and we just can't do it. And running a 

model with wild guesses in it isn't going to make it any 

better is the point, back to this chart here I did 

yesterday. 

DR. BOVE: I don't know if this is pertinent to 

what's being raised here, but my main concern right now 

and the problem with the previous study was that we called 

some people, a lot of people, unexposed when they were 

really exposed. Is that right? Yeah. 

And if you look at the chart I produced, sensitivity, 

which means correctly calling someone who is exposed -- 

who truly is exposed, exposed, and not calling them 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
40 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

unexposed is a -- has a bigger impact than specificity of 

exposure, correctly identifying the unexposed. 

So I'm more concerned right now with being able to 

say that these people -- certain proportion of the 

population were unexposed and being confident of that 

because that was the problem with the last study. And if 

there are interconnections, we need to figure out how to 

deal with that in our study. So, I mean, you know, I mean 

the simplest analysis we can make in our study is simply, 

as I said before, unexposed versus exposed and being 

confident that we're identifying the people properly. 

Okay. 

Then, after that, we can talk about the level of 

concentration and if we have the numbers. Part of the 

constraints of our study is we have small numbers. You 

saw the number of cases that we have to deal with. This 

is not a large population. 

In order to do a birth-defect study, I studied 80,000 

births in northern New Jersey, and I still didn't have 

enough really to -- I had small sample sizes when you 

broke -- started breaking them down into exposure 

categories. So this is -- you can't go too far in 

categorizing the exposure before you really have very 

unstable estimates for the relative risk or odds ratio. 

So -- is this -- 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
41 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. DOUGHERTY: So to summarize and prioritize, we 

don't need to worry about the exposures at Tarawa Terrace 

because we can pretty well guess they're all exposed. 

DR. BOVE: Except for that period; right? The later 

period? Right. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: So we have -- I think we heard pretty 

significant evidence that pumps were operating through the 

entire study period out of Tarawa Terrace. 

DR. WALSKI: Until they shut T-26 down. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. 

DR. WALSKI: But until that date; yeah. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Possibly. We don't know the level of 

concentrations at other wells. TT-25, for example, is 

very close to TT-26, and it continued to operate, as I 

understand, at least into '86 or '87. So what we're -- 

the real issue is worrying about the controls rather than 

the cases. And that gets us out of Tarawa Terrace. Is 

that fair? 

DR. BOVE: Cases and controls is not the way that I 

look at it. Exposed and unexposed -- we need to identify 

who's exposed and not exposed. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Replace my language. 

DR. BOVE: Right. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: And then, is that a fair summary, a 

first-order priority? 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
42 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. Yes. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Okay. 

DR. LABOLLE: And that falls on -- on this connection 

between Hadnot Point, I presume, and the Holcomb Boulevard 

system, essentially, because the potential for an 

unexposed population here is Berkeley Manor; is that 

correct? 

DR. DOUGHERTY: What's Berkeley Manor? 

DR. LABOLLE: Well, I'm looking at this development 

here, fed by the Holcomb Boulevard -- 

MR. MASLIA: Yeah. All the housing that would be 

served by Holcomb Boulevard. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: That's very helpful. 

MR. HARDING: Now, let me just point out that on 5 

February 1985, somebody sampled somewhere in the Tarawa 

Terrace system and reports 80 parts per billion of PCE, 

similar to the sampling that was done in 1982. 

So, I mean, the whole system, if you just look at 

these snapshots -- and we don't know what time of day, 

what day of the week, what the circumstances were, which 

wells were cycling. But it looks remarkably stable 

through that period. It looks to me like even into 1985 

you could -- it would be reasonable to think that the 

people in Tarawa Terrace were all -- I want to make a 

nomenclature suggestion here -- potentially exposed, in 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
43 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the sense that the concentrations were available at their 

tap, should they choose to turn it on. 

So it's a potential exposure. The actual exposure 

occurs when they drink it, they take a shower, they bathe 

in it. So they may have had personal habits that they 

drank nothing but bottled water. They may have had -- 

they may have bathed rather than showered, which would 

make a big difference in how much they actually -- how 

much their intakes were. So we have to bear that in mind. 

But the -- potentially, that population up there that 

lived there, if they used the water somehow, then had an 

exposure, had an intake. So in that whole area, up 

through 19 -- through at least, it would seem, February of 

1985. 

MR. MASLIA: Would it be then your suggestion or 

advice to just use that 80 parts per billion? 

MR. HARDING: No. No. That would not be my advice. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. Then what -- then our question 

would be -- 

MR. HARDING: I'm going to defer to the groundwater 

people. 

MR. MASLIA: -- is what number do we use? 

MR. HARDING: But let me make -- the point is that 

the water-distribution system is not a substantial factor 

in what that concentration is. It's the groundwater. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
44 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

It's reconstructing the historical conditions in the 

groundwater and then how the wells were cycled because if 

you had a contaminated well that was used, you know, once 

-- one day a month it's going to be real different than if 

that well was running all the time. So you -- we have to 

understand that. But the pipes, it seems to me, and -- 

MR. MASLIA: Would you not want -- let me -- let me 

-- again, so I understand or at least your approach or 

your understanding is, if we've got three, four wells, one 

of them is contaminated or whatever and they're mixing. 

Number one, you're suggesting that we use a simple mixing 

model. In other words, you pump groundwater however, 

assuming we get the information on how they're cycling. 

Then they're -- you use a simple mixing model, and then 

assume that that mixed mass was distributed equally to 

everyone in Tarawa Terrace. 

DR. LABOLLE: Yes. That's correct. During the time 

when the systems were not connected. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Right. And to come back to the 

question that you asked Ben and Ben deferred on, it 

sounded like the first-order question was potentially 

exposed or certainly not exposed and that we don't care 

about concentrations for. 

So the first priority out of that list that was given 

to us by Dr. Bove checked off. The second one -- it seems 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
45 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to me -- to come back to the end of the day yesterday, all 

of the focus should be on the source-release model. 

That's where the focus has to be. And the attention to 

how much at which well. That will fall out quite easily. 

The hard part is the source term. And so you get the 

source, and in a relatively simple mixing model, if we 

need to get the second stage of concentrations, and the 

first-order estimates based on observed data are that the 

concentrations are stable, but that's only at the very 

back of the -- at the very back of the study period. So 

then we have to do the census work and precipitate perhaps 

more -- careful analysis of precipitation-induced 

accretion to get concentrations into the ground. But, you 

know, it really -- the comments this morning were quite 

helpful. 

DR. LABOLLE: What source are you referring to? 

DR. DOUGHERTY: ABC. 

DR. LABOLLE: Okay. The ABC source itself. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: For handling -- for handling the 

Tarawa Terrace problem. 

DR. LABOLLE: I think, also, as important, in my 

experience, will be not just the source but the geologic 

uncertainty. For a given source, different geologic 

models can yield orders of magnitude, several orders of 

magnitude difference in arrival concentrations to a well. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
46 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

And that's the kind of uncertainty that you'd be dealing 

with there. I mean, granted, we see a few concentrations 

here at points in time that make this system appear as if 

it's stable. But then again, we've only got -- 

MR. HARDING: Two. 

DR. LABOLLE: So, that -- there's, you know -- 

MR. HARDING: I understand. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- there's not a lot to go with there 

to assume stability in the concentration. My experience 

has been that there's a lot of variability in the arrival 

to wells based upon their cycling and how the systems are 

run and variation in the source as David had mentioned, 

so... 

DR. KONIKOW: But the point -- one of the points is 

that you really -- your study isn't starting until 1965 -- 

MR. MASLIA: '68. 

DR. KONIKOW: '68. That gives you 14 years from the 

time ABC Cleaner [sic] started. So the value in doing the 

groundwater flow and transport model will be to, you know, 

start the -- as best we know, they were introducing 

contaminants into the soil, at least, through the septic 

tanks very shortly after they started; maybe a year, maybe 

instantly, maybe a year, maybe two years at most. 

That gives you 12 years for it to reach the water 

table and spread. The groundwater flow and transport 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
47 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

models, accounting for uncertainty, heterogeneity, and so 

on, will give you range of arrival times. But I'm 

guessing that the bulk of your realizations will get 

contaminant reaching the wells in that 14-year period. 

MR. MASLIA: Oh, no question about it. 

DR. KONIKOW: I think all of the uncertainty is going 

to be the range -- 

MR. MASLIA: Right; range. 

DR. KONIKOW: -- is going to be before your 1968 

starting time. So it's worth doing those flow and 

transport models just to demonstrate that, but I -- 

MR. MASLIA: Let me, again, and I'm not -- I don't 

want this to come out right [sic] that I'm questioning the 

panel. But I'm questioning you because we're, from what I 

gather, at a critical juncture as to how we progress or 

what direction we take. So I want to make sure, both for 

the record and for my understanding, that -- and based on 

what you said, Lenny, and some others. 

It's your suggestion then that more of the effort now 

be focused on understanding the groundwater flow and 

transport, in fact, from the source characterization 

through any unsaturated zone to get to arrive at a -- or a 

reduced level of uncertainty for the concentration that 

goes into the treatment plant. Is that -- 

DR. KONIKOW: Well, you have very limited data 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
48 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

against which to calibrate your model. Okay. And you 

know, in the period that you were collecting data, the 

wells were contaminated. Okay. So if you're going to run 

the groundwater model, it's a question of how do you get 

from zero to that level of concentration that you're 

calibrating. You start with an initial condition of no 

PCE in 1954. Okay. 

And then you start your model running. And there's 

going to be speculation upon assumption built into that, 

and you'll get a range of responses. My hypothesis or my 

guess would be that all roads will lead to contamination 

by 1968. You want to do the modeling to demonstrate it. 

Maybe I'm wrong. 

But you want -- the only possible outcome that would 

differ would be a later arrival, and that may be the first 

few years there's no exposure. I think that's unlikely, 

but that's what you want to evaluate, and that's probably 

the best you could hope from from all of these models. 

MR. MASLIA: Would you look at then perhaps putting 

some effort into different source characterization or 

operation, a continuous source versus pulsing versus 

operation five days a week versus seven days a week? 

DR. KONIKOW: I don't see the point of doing that. I 

mean, the only -- the only possible testing, in terms of 

field testing, that might be worthwhile would be a tracer 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
49 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

test to get a handle on travel time in this saturated 

zone. But I would explore other -- apparently, there were 

tracer tests done in the Tarawa Terrace area specifically 

related to ABC Cleaners. And this comes out of a draft, a 

National Research Council report that I saw. 

And they say tracer tests were done there, interwell 

tracer tests were done there. I don't know what distance 

the wells were apart. And I don't exactly what the 

purpose was, but there is some -- somewhere out there is 

some information, and it would probably be useful to get 

that. That might help pin down porosity, dispersivity, 

and travel time. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. We'll look for that information. 

DR. KONIKOW: But I'm guessing the outcome is still 

going to be, from the start of your epidemiological study 

to the end, Tarawa Terrace residents were exposed, which, 

if you could support that, it kind of mediates the need 

for more refined modeling because it's not going to yield 

anything more than that. 

MR. MASLIA: Then from a standpoint of being 

conservative, from a public health standpoint, let's 

assume we refine our groundwater understanding and we get 

it -- get the simple mixing model and get it at whatever 

concentration we happen to simulate going in. The fact 

that we may or may not come out with the 80 parts per 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
50 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

billion that was measured at the tap, is that immaterial 

or is that of importance or should we go -- again, 

supposing we come out with several hundred parts per 

billion after that? 

MR. HARDING: The 80 parts per billion, these are 

five snapshots that we don't -- and first of all, we don't 

know the sampling protocols, what time of day, what day of 

the week, what the conditions were in the system. These 

are just snapshots. 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

MR. HARDING: So, I mean, in between those, it could 

be 500; it could be two. You don't know. But the point 

here is: After you've done the groundwater modeling, 

you've got a one or a zero here on the breakthrough curve 

having reached a particular well. You still have the 

question -- and since I'm in the water-distribution 

business, at least at this panel, I want to make sure we 

still have a toehold on this; and that is, how the wells 

were run. 

You know, there's still this operational question of 

how they cycled the wells. And if you had -- if I recall 

correctly, there was a couple of these, two or three wells 

-- groundwater people can may remember better -- that were 

really contaminated at Tarawa Terrace. And then there 

were several others that were still in operation. So 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
51 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

they'd cycle through these. 

So the concentrations were going to vary 

considerably, depending on which well happened to be in 

service at a particular point in time. And so personally, 

right now, based on what I know, I would spend a lot of 

time, in addition to dealing with the groundwater issue, 

on trying to understand at least statistically how these 

wells were operated, getting the statistics of those well 

operations so you can -- you can do some kind of a 

calculation of the probability that any particular person 

was exposed at a particular time. And I have to say right 

now that a weekly time resolution is probably 

unreasonable. 

You know, I just -- you know, the groundwater -- I 

don't know. Once it's there, the well's going to be 

contaminated, but how they ran the wells on a particular 

day is unknown and probably will never be really known. 

DR. BOVE: Right. And I was talking to Bob Faye just 

a few minutes ago over there, and at the wellhead, we'll 

have issues of seasonality; right? I mean, there will be 

differences in recharge, so that I'd like to capture 

because, you know, that will impact -- if we can 

categorize exposure more than just yes/no, it will be 

important to know whether the first trimester occurred at 

a time of high recharge or low recharge. That would be 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
52 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

important. 

MR. HARDING: I don't think the recharge is going to 

be as big an influence as to which switch on the wall has 

been flipped. 

DR. BOVE: No. There's two -- 

MR. HARDING: Well -- 

DR. BOVE: Right. There's two, you know, general 

sources of uncertainty here, and I'm just focusing on -- 

MR. HARDING: You ought to pick the biggest one to 

deal with. Spend most your effort on the biggest -- 

DR. BOVE: Well, we have a couple of issues here too 

because we may have to do additional studies. Okay. So 

we would like to know when that contamination actually got 

to Tarawa Terrace. So that's why the modeling has to 

happen, so that we know exactly when that water got there 

because, if we have do to adult cancer study, for example 

-- and that's probably going to be recommended -- that we 

have a notion of how far back in time the exposure -- 

MR. HARDING: Prior to 1968? 

DR. BOVE: Prior to 1968. Yes; absolutely. So 

that's why it's important to do the groundwater modeling 

and then determine that. But beyond that, as Bob was 

telling me, there's variability at the wellhead, which we 

have to capture. And then there's variability in the 

system, which you're pointing out, which we have to 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
53 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

capture. 

Now, whether -- I just threw out weekly. I'm willing 

to -- at this point, I'm willing to take what I can get. 

That's what environmental epidemiologists do all the time. 

So if monthly is the best resolution that makes any sense, 

we can work with that. 

DR. LABOLLE: When you refer to resolution monthly, 

temporally, what if I told you that I can give you a range 

of monthly concentrations and they vary over two orders of 

magnitude? 

DR. BOVE: It wouldn't be unusual. 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: For a medical epidemiologist. 

MR. HARDING: Yeah; but neither is zero. 

DR. WALSKI: The thing is you're going to know 

they're exposed. In Tarawa Terrace, you know they're 

going to be exposed from this time until they shut that 

well off. And after that, they're not exposed. 

The real hairy issue is the Hadnot Point to Holcomb 

one. And I'm afraid there you're not going to get a: Yes, 

they're exposed; no, they're not. You're going to get: 

Yes, these people were exposed. No, those people were 

not. And there's a big chunk of people that we think may 

have not been, but there may have been a few days that 

they got it. And that's going to be a chunk of your 

population. You're not going to get a yes or no for those 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
54 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

people because we just don't -- 

DR. BOVE: We have to whittle down that chunk because 

we're going to run out of -- 

DR. WALSKI: But that's going to be archaeology and 

not modeling. That's going to be finding out -- finding 

those people who retired who operated the valves and 

talking to them. And no amount of modeling is going to 

make up for that type of uncertainty. 

DR. LABOLLE: Have you run the binary analysis 

already with the epi study? The one saying, you know, 

under the assumption that Tarawa Terrace is exposed during 

this -- 

DR. BOVE: That was the previous study. We said that 

everyone at Tarawa Terrace was exposed. 

DR. LABOLLE: Uh-huh. 

DR. BOVE: And everyone at Holcomb Boulevard was 

unexposed. And we left the Hadnot Point situation aside. 

And we've been challenged, rightly, that the study had 

exposure misclassification. The unexposed had a lot of 

exposed people in them because during -- at least '68 to 

'72, I don't know, they were getting Hadnot Point water, 

so they were hardly unexposed. And that really attenuates 

your odds ratio. 

DR. LABOLLE: Couldn't you narrow that, your 

unexposed population, to a different time frame when they 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
55 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

actually were unexposed? 

DR. BOVE: We could. We were going to revisit that 

study after this effort was done. But we could do that, 

sure. 

DR. JOHNSON: Well, this has been really an 

outstanding discussion, and at the risk of imposing upon 

Mr. Maslia once again, I -- would you -- would you put in 

a capsule statement what you think you've heard from the 

panel? 

MR. MASLIA: Basically, as I think said 15 or so 

minutes ago, we need to -- my understanding is concentrate 

on the groundwater issues. And I'll just put that in the 

issues, including the modeling, the source, what I call 

source characterization, a source understanding, trying to 

either narrow or understand the uncertainties associated 

with the groundwater parameters, infiltration, recharge, 

things of that nature, well operation, cycling on and off 

of the groundwater wells, and then assume a simple mixing 

model at the plant and assume that's what the people in 

Tarawa Terrace were exposed to. 

DR. JOHNSON: Is that what the panel think that you 

said? 

DR. WALSKI: That's right for Tarawa Terrace. 

MR. HARDING: In a summary, yes, for Tarawa Terrace. 

DR. JOHNSON: Well, thank you. Let's move ahead. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
56 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MASLIA: Is there a need then to go over the 

present-day system, or... 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. Okay. 

MR. HARDING: I think -- let's get back to this 

question here. We have an approach to establish an 

exposed population and within some range of uncertainty 

quantify those potential exposures and to calculate the 

intakes that resulted from that once we know what people 

did. That's the Tarawa Terrace area. 

Now, I understand from the discussion that the second 

need now is to find an unexposed -- populations unexposed 

to the contaminants that had a similar lifestyle, you 

know, geographic location. So we're trying to find 

another population; right? That's our next -- that's our 

second need here; am I correct? 

DR. BOVE: On the base; yeah. 

MR. HARDING: On the base being important because we 

want them to have similar -- 

DR. BOVE: It's family housing, so they would be 

similar. It won't differ by -- too much by housing, and 

we can control for rank if necessary. We've done that 

before in a previous study. 

MR. HARDING: Right. The reason I made that point of 

similar other exposures is we can't go off the base and 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
57 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

find somebody -- some population. So we have to find some 

place -- 

DR. BOVE: Not for this study. Not for this study, 

we can't. 

MR. HARDING: -- some place on that diagram, try to 

find some place where you can be reasonably certain people 

were not exposed for some certain period of time, right, 

specified period of time? 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. And I do have, I guess, just 

another question to understand. Is it your suggestion or 

understanding then, and going back to Tarawa Terrace, that 

we would not need to know a diurnal pattern of any type 

over a 24-hour period as far as to refine periods when 

they did or did not most likely ingest water? 

DR. CLARK: I think you would. 

MR. MASLIA: We would need to? 

DR. CLARK: That's my opinion. Yes. 

MR. HARDING: You would only need it -- you would 

only need it to try to go back and reconstruct the well 

operation in my mind. Because once that water gets into 

the pipe system, assuming there's only one source, it's 

eventually going to reach every point in the system in a 

matter of -- if the tanks are really irrelevant, in a 

matter of hours. And the other -- most conditions. And 

maybe, if there's dead-ends, it will take a little longer. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
58 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

But the important part of potentially understanding 

water demand would be to go back and try to reconstruct 

how they cycled the wells because they might bring more 

wells on during the peak hours. They might not. If 

they're not using the tanks, that's probably what they're 

doing. I mean, there's only -- if they're not using the 

tanks then they're matching their supply and their demand 

quite well. Wouldn't you say, Tom? I mean, that's what 

you got -- 

DR. CLARK: I thought they were using the tanks. I 

thought that was part of what they found out from their 

study. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. They found out both -- both in 

different areas. 

DR. WALSKI: We can't get rid of that uncertainty, so 

why try to model it? You know, depending on -- you know, 

Joe was operating the system in '91 and '92 and he did it 

this way. And Johnny came in '93 and did it this way. 

But back in '87, we had Frank did it and he did it this 

way. And we can't -- we're not going to be able ever to 

unravel that, I don't think. 

MR. MASLIA: You're talking about operating the 

distribution system? 

DR. WALSKI: Yeah; operating the well pumps. You 

know, we're not going to be able to unravel that it 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
59 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

doesn't appear, other than saying on average from the 

USGS data we know they pumped this much out that year of 

the well. And that's about all -- that's the level of 

resolution we're going to have. So talking about 

hourly -- 

MR. HARDING: Monthly. 

DR. WALSKI: Yeah. Okay. Monthly then. But 

talking about hourly is just -- we just can't get down to 

that resolution. 

MR. HARDING: Do we have data for individual wells, 

production data for individual wells? 

DR. CLARK: Monthly, I think, isn't it? 

DR. DOUGHERTY: I believe you said yesterday it was 

monthly totals for the system. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: And then we have snapshots in time of 

the individual -- 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- well capacities from the Tarawa 

Terrace -- 

MR. MASLIA: We've got monthly totals. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- capacities, not actual rates. 

MR. MASLIA: We've got monthly production, raw-water 

intake for each of the treatment plants in the eighties. 

We're missing a couple of years. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
60 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. LABOLLE: And some notes. 

MR. MASLIA: And then we've got some notes on some 

other -- 

DR. UBER: Well, you have an understanding of their 

methodology of operation. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. Yes. We do have an understanding 

with also the understanding, although it may be 

qualitative, that they operated in a similar manner 

historically. 

MR. HARDING: I don't want to sound frivolous here, 

but when going back and trying to figure out how people 

have run things in the past, I tend to look at their 

motivation individually. And in a public municipality 

kind of situation, that typically is cost. 

So they'll typically try to run their most efficient 

resources first. They will get beat up by the city 

council or the utilities director to try to cut back on 

your costs. And I don't know what the motivating factors 

for the operators here were. But you have to ask that 

question if you're trying to go back and just come up with 

some hypothesis about how they operated, which may be the 

best you can do. 

MR. MASLIA: Well, I can, perhaps, from what I've 

observed, or we've observed, one motivation would be to 

keep the tanks filled. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
61 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HARDING: Yeah. But at which wells would they -- 

MR. MASLIA: I'm saying -- 

MR. HARDING: You know, it may be that certain wells 

were maintenance problems. So they would not run those as 

often. It could be that they had a particular cycling 

scheme to avoid biofouling. I don't know. But these are 

the -- I'm not saying that we can determine that now. 

But I'm just pointing out that when you go back 

you're going to interview people about how they ran this 

stuff. You're never going to know exactly. But you can 

refine that a little bit by saying: Well, they typically 

would run this well first because the switch was closer to 

the -- to the office. I don't know. They didn't have to 

walk as far. I mean, things like this happen. 

DR. WALSKI: Well, we do have some evidence. 

Somewhere I read here that they ran several -- they ran 

each well several hours a day was their usual pattern. So 

we have at least that guidance that it was fairly uniform, 

that they didn't operate one for three months and then 

shut it off for three months. 

MR. HARDING: Right. 

DR. WALSKI: It was more -- you know, several hour 

cycles. 

MR. HARDING: Right. 

DR. WALSKI: So we know that the average, you know, 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
62 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

contribution from each well over a day was fairly steady. 

It wasn't changing. 

MR. HARDING: And that would be, certainly, one model 

to think about, you know, would be that they continued 

that operation, one scenario. 

DR. CLARK: But back to the 24-hour exposure, I think 

you do. Particularly if you get into adult cancer studies 

and other epidemiological studies, you're going to have to 

have some sense of what people were exposed when. And it 

seems to me the only way to do that is to come up with 

some typical 24-hour cycles of exposure. 

MR. MASLIA: That was our -- one of our motivations 

in trying to understand or at least get some system flows, 

present-day flows in the system. Now, that may or may not 

be -- 

MR. HARDING: But it doesn't -- that doesn't -- what 

matters is what goes into the system; that is, how they 

operated the wells, the cycling of the wells. That's what 

matters. Because once it gets into the system, that 

defines what the profile of exposure is going to be over 

the next several hours. If they're using the tanks, then 

it's going to get dampened out some way. 

MR. MASLIA: But are you saying we do not need to 

know that -- and I'm just using throwing out numbers -- at 

4 a.m. there's an upswing in demand? So obviously, on the 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
63 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Marine Corps base, perhaps, because they're showering at 

4 a.m. And then it levels off, and then they come home, 

you know, at 4 p.m., and the upswing goes up. Are you 

saying -- it's my understanding that you're suggesting we 

don't need to know that. 

MR. HARDING: Let's separate the two issues here. 

One is the behavior of the potential cases, the people 

that were exposed, from the operation of the system. And 

that information might be valuable in trying to figure out 

how they cycled the wells. But I would -- I would not. 

And I'm not an epidemiologist. But based on what work 

I've done related to this, I would not try to infer what 

people were doing from the water use of the entire system. 

What I would do is try to look at the people, the 

individuals, to the extent that you can interview them or 

classify them, as to their behavior. And if you can't, 

then use population-default probabilities that they would 

shower at this time. If there's only one source, you're 

never going to know. No matter what, you're never going 

to know what happened at a particular hour. You won't. 

You can't know that. You can -- 

MR. MASLIA: You don't think we can know that because 

it's a specialized population on a military base? 

MR. HARDING: I'm sorry. I was talking about the 

water-distribution system. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
64 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MASLIA: That's what I'm saying. In other words, 

when we've been on base anyway, at least our observation 

is that, as we're conducting field tests at 6 a.m., 

they're all out jogging, doing exercises. Okay. So 

they're out of the house or out of their quarters at 

6 a.m. 

If you look at some of our data, you see an upswing 

in production or whatever at 4 a.m. Well, that would seem 

to indicate somebody's using water from at 4 a.m. or using 

more water. Let me qualify that. 

MR. HARDING: Well, I would hope you'd see it at 

about seven, you know -- 

MR. MASLIA: No. 

MR. HARDING: -- when they come back from running. 

MR. MASLIA: That's not what we've seen. 

MR. HARDING: My point was that, in the waterdistribution system, you won't know the concentrations to 

the hour. You just can't know that. The behavior of the 

people, you know, you may be able to infer that from other 

things you know. But I would not infer it from, at least 

solely from, the water pattern of water use in the system. 

That's all I'm saying. 

DR. CLARK: But it's that combination of use and 

concentration that's important in terms of exposure. 

MR. HARDING: Right. The concentrations represent 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
65 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

what I call the potential exposures. 

DR. LABOLLE: Are the concentrations important, or is 

it the total mass -- 

DR. CLARK I guess it depends on what you're looking 

-- I guess if you're looking as adult cancer exposure, I 

would think the concentrations would be important. 

UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: We'd like to have 

that. 

DR. CLARK: Every epidemiologist would like to have 

that, I would think. 

MR. HARDING: Yeah. What Eric is saying is that it's 

the actual mass that enters the body that matters 

medically, and so it's a combination. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: That depends upon the contaminant. 

MR. HARDING: The drinking and the -- their behavior 

because if the water is at the tap and they don't use it, 

it doesn't -- 

MR. MASLIA: That's what I'm asking. Not to belabor 

the point, but I'm trying to understand. If we're saying 

we want to understand their behavior, short of having 

activity patterns, would not a surrogate for that be the 

development, based on data of diurnal patterns for 

different locations within the base, knowing -- knowing 

that they -- that you've got a specialized population 

here. In other words, you've got -- 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
66 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. KONIKOW: But is there any hope if you knew the 

concentration at every well at all times, which you're not 

going to? But if you did, even given that information, do 

you know enough about when each well was pumped during the 

day, how it connected to the distribution system, to the 

treatment plant, to the tanks, that you could then predict 

what the concentration distribution within the residential 

area would be and how it varied with time on an hourly 

basis? That's just -- 

MR. MASLIA: No. That, we do not have. 

DR. KONIKOW: I mean, it just seems hopeless to try 

to get hourly exposure data. 

DR. CLARK: But you could get typical exposure 

patterns. 

DR. WALSKI: But they're getting the same 

concentration every hour. So the pattern doesn't really 

matter. 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: Right. 

DR. CLARK: Well, it is important. I don't 

understand your -- 

DR. WALSKI: If you're getting 80 in the morning or 

80 at night, that's not the distribution system. 

COURT REPORTER: I need you by the mike; one at a 

time, by the mike. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. But that's not something you 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
67 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

model. I mean, the model can -- let's say you get 80 

during that day, and that's into the epidemiology whether 

they drank it in the morning or drank it at night. 

DR. CLARK: Well, it would depend on whether you're 

using it -- you know, whether you're inhaling it, whether 

you're ingesting it. I mean, those are very important. 

DR. CLARK: Yeah, those are things are exposure 

patterns and you have to be able to have that kind of 

information. I think you could get that from a daily 

exposure -- a daily cycle of concentration plus 

superimposing upon that the pattern of activity. 

DR. KONIKOW: Where are you going to get a daily 

cycle of concentration from? 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: We're not going to get that. 

DR. CLARK: I think you can get a typical daily 

cycle. 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: I don't believe -- 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: Where? Where would the 

variation come from? 

DR. CLARK: I believe you can. 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: But it goes through the same 

place. 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: But you don't know that. 

COURT REPORTER: Gentlemen (laughter). 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: Is she a Marine? 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
68 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

COURT REPORTER: The record is suffering, and you're 

not getting anything right now. This is for your advice. 

DR. SINGH: I think we are playing a little bit of a 

pundit here. I think the main issue is the waterdistribution modeling system here and how does it affect 

the exposure. That is really the crux of the matter here. 

That's what he's trying to get at. And as Ben pointed 

out, as Tom pointed out, I don't think it is really going 

to make a whole lot of difference so long as we know the 

concentration and the depth because that is what is going 

to determine the exposure of the people. 

DR. CLARK: But you have to -- I think you have to 

have the modeling to be able to predict what the 

concentration of the tap is going to be. 

DR. SINGH: Well, I'm not sure really if the waterdistribution modeling is going to make that much of a 

difference to the concentration. I think what we need -- 

you know, what the groundwater model is giving, that is 

really the crux of the matter. Once that -- that gives us 

-- once it goes into the treatment plant, the water comes 

into the pipes. I don't think the pipes are going to make 

a great deal of difference unless, of course, as you 

pointed out, unless we take care of the biology and the 

chemistry, which they are not -- 

DR. LABOLLE: Well, that would be another issue. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
69 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. SINGH: -- which they're not dealing with. Then 

I'm not sure how it is going to really greatly impact the 

pollutant concentration which the people will be exposed 

to. 

MR. MASLIA: The fact that -- given that we may not 

be able to show a difference, you know, day to day or 

whatever, but rather just come up with a typical day, do 

we still need to be able to demonstrate that it is 

insensitive in a formalized way, not just make a 

statement, but demonstrate in a formalized, approved, or 

acceptable method, i.e., some kind of model or something, 

at least running it to some degree to show that this is 

insensitive and that there's no need to refine it any 

further? 

DR. SINGH: Your snapshot data, on May 27th, 1982, 

tap water at TT tested: PCE, 80 ppb. Then if you take in 

the snapshot, February 5, 1985, TT tap water tested: PCB, 

80 mpb. And in between, there is a little bit of 

variation. It seems to me that really that it's not a 

very wide range of PCE concentration in the waterdistribution system. 

DR. LABOLLE: It's likely to vary more than, I think, 

what's indicated by these two snapshots. That's just -- 

DR. BOVE: Probably an order of magnitude. 

DR. LABOLLE: Maybe more; maybe less. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
70 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. POMMERENK: It's just -- for example, wasn't 

there a sample point that indicated 12,000 micrograms per 

liter? 

MR. MASLIA: At a well? 

DR. POMMERENK: At a well. 

MR. MASLIA: At a well, there was 1600 -- almost 1600 

parts per billion. 

DR. POMMERENK: So hypothetically -- 

MR. MASLIA: Was that Well 26? 

UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off microphone) 

MR. MASLIA: Well 26 was almost 1600 parts per 

billion? 

UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Uh-huh. 

MR. MASLIA: Yeah; 1600 parts per billion. 

DR. POMMERENK: Hypothetically, you know, the well 

could have been turned on in the morning before any other 

well was turned on, and that got into the tank. And let's 

say we had some, you know, plug flow there. So the slug 

of 16,000 -- 1600 micrograms per liter could have reached 

some consumer within hours or a day. So there is a range 

of, you know, a factor -- 

DR. DOUGHERTY: What if it proved less than that 

because it takes multiple wells to fulfill the demand? 

Right? Let's say -- 

DR. POMMERENK: Well, I mean if we assume -- 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
71 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- three, roughly three at a time, I 

think, is what we discussed yesterday. 

DR. POMMERENK: Well, if we assume that there's 

always complete mixing and so on. And, of course, there 

are reserves in the system. So they may draw some water 

from tanks once in a while, and so... 

DR. LABOLLE: But, certainly, that concentration in 

that well, you know, although we see, you know, a point in 

time 1600. It could have been 16,000, you know, the month 

before. 

DR. JOHNSON: Mr. Ensminger, do you wish to comment? 

MR. ENSMINGER: Let me get up here before I get 

yelled at (laughter). 

There was one test at Tarawa Terrace that did show 

215 parts per billion. And that was taken in February of 

1985, just prior to the wells being closed down. 

MR. HARDING: Was that a test at a well? 

MR. ENSMINGER: Yes. And it's in the public health 

assessment -- no; not at the well. That's at the tap. 

MR. HARDING: What was that number again? 

MR. ENSMINGER: 215. And it's in the public health 

assessment. 

DR. JOHNSON: I'd like to -- I've been getting sort 

of a frantic message here from our recorder that she needs 

to calibrate her recording equipment. So I'd like for us 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
72 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to take about a ten-minute break. We can return and 

continue this discussion. And I would like to talk with 

Mr. Maslia as to what you feel you need to present next, 

if anything. Okay. So about a ten-minute break. 

(Whereupon, a recess of approximately seven minutes 

was taken.) 

DR. JOHNSON: About how much time will you need, 

Morris? 

MR. MASLIA: Three years (laughter). 

DR. JOHNSON: And more. 

MR. MASLIA: No; probably 20 minutes, maybe. Is that 

too much? 

DR. JOHNSON: We'll give you 15 minutes. Okay? 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. I'll -- 

DR. JOHNSON: So about ten after -- 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. 

DR. JOHNSON: -- try to wrap it up. And then we can 

turn to these questions. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. 

DR. JOHNSON: I'm obsessed by these questions, as you 

can tell. 

MR. MASLIA: That's fine. I appreciate that. What 

the presentation, continuing from this morning is intended 

to be, is to go over what we understand about the presentday system. So I'll proceed along that road. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
73 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

This is an example of the Hadnot Point watertreatment plant. Does anybody mind if I stand out here? 

Okay. But basically our approach is not to model anything 

within the treatment plant but basically the flow or the 

discharge coming out, the assumption being that nothing 

significant would occur to the -- once the wells are mixed 

to the concentrations within the treatment plant. 

So what we have from a link and node point of view is 

we're just supplying water at a node or at a point to the 

distribution model and putting in demands and having our 

tanks. That's the approach in all three models that we 

have. And this information we obtained from the water 

utility or from records that we have -- production records 

that we have. 

MR. HARDING: How complete are those? 

MR. MASLIA: We have -- as Bob said yesterday, we've 

got records in the eighties, except for a couple of years, 

a couple of critical years. We've got sporadic 

information, and then we also have some in the nineties. 

This is monthly data for each of the -- it's 

production for the total treatment plant, in other words, 

not by well, but by what the -- the plant took in as raw 

water and then produced and put out into the system and 

then what we measured in the field. 

Each system is operated -- each of the three systems 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
74 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

is operated by using what's referred to as a controlling 

tank. That's the one with the asterisk. And based on the 

water level in that tank, that triggers high-lift pumps to 

push water out into the system or fill the tanks. 

We've done some C-factor tests. The -- this is an 

average of all. We did eight C-factor tests. These are 

the averages. The ones where it says "C-factor tests" is 

an average of the tests for that particular pipe type. We 

found that the cast iron pipes had a -- what we thought 

indicated more of a smooth as opposed to more rough type 

characteristic in them. 

DR. WALSKI: Morris, roughly what percentage of the 

pipe was cast iron versus PVC? I guess they're the two 

main ones. 

MR. MASLIA: I have that, and that's in the notes. 

DR. WALSKI: Just approximately. Was it like half 

was cast iron or 10 percent or... 

MR. MASLIA: I want to say 60 percent, but I'm not -- 

it's in the report, and I don't have that off the top of 

my head. But we've got a table. There was a table in the 

report that listed it, but we can get you that number. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. 

MR. MASLIA: Cast iron; yes. It's 34 percent cast 

iron. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
75 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MASLIA: That's present day -- 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. 

MR. MASLIA: -- present-day system. We've also 

distributed or developed what we're calling demand groups, 

and this is based on these group -- groupings are based on 

nomenclature from a water-conservation analysis that was 

done in 1999 for the Marine Corps at Camp Lejeune. 

And we've got this unknown negligible group basically 

because there was a large disparity between what could be 

accounted for and what couldn't be. It's about 30 percent 

difference. 

Just to show you the distribution based on our 

understanding. This is Hadnot Point, and you can see in 

the Hadnot Point -- and I know -- I apologize, Ben, that 

this is in color. So let me get a -- I'm trying to think 

where I put the pointer now. 

DR. JOHNSON: Use the microphone. I was referring to 

Ben. 

MR. HARDING: Sorry. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. Ben, Hadnot Point -- this is 

really the only family housing right up in this area. The 

area down in here is bachelor housing. And then the rest 

would be more industrial and other offices and things like 

that; whereas, in Holcomb Boulevard and Tarawa Terrace -- 

in Holcomb Boulevard, we've got all this area down here, 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
76 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

down here, and down here. That's family housing. And, of 

course, in Tarawa Terrace, we've got -- that's nearly 100 

percent family housing with the exception of some shopping 

centers. 

The number of nodes that it's referring to in the 

model is basically for in all pipes. These are all pipe 

models, although we have also developed the network for 

skeletonized ones as well. That is basically a short 

description of the present-day distribution systems, and 

now what I'll do is go through the field testing that 

we've done. 

DR. CLARK: One question is: Do you have a picture of 

how pipe replacement took place over time? If it's 34 

percent cast iron now, one of the issues is going to be, I 

think, how much of it was cast iron under previous 

scenarios, I guess? 

MR. MASLIA: Here's a picture of how it took place. 

DR. CLARK: Yeah. And do you know how much, for 

example, in 1985, how much was cast iron? 

MR. MASLIA: Not right offhand. 

DR. CLARK: Okay. 

MR. MASLIA: We don't. But we do know because right 

now they're replacing -- substantially replacing. They've 

got a building program, say, at Tarawa Terrace. And so 

they're, as we speak, replacing -- replacing pipes with 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
77 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

PVC. On the other hand, they replaced a pipe going up to 

the Naval hospital. That's the asbestos cement pipe that 

we did a test on, and for whatever reason, when they 

replaced the pipe, they used asbestos cement not PVC. 

So I'm -- for whatever reason, I don't know. I'm 

assuming that's the way the contract -- whoever bid on the 

contract replaced it with. Okay. Continuing on, we've 

conducted -- we conducted a test at -- in the Hadnot Point 

area from May 24th to 27th through monitored system 

pressures. We retrieved storage-tank levels and we 

conducted dual-tracer tests. 

We injected calcium chloride, and then we also -- it 

says injected sodium fluoride. We shut the fluoride off 

to the -- we didn't shut it off. The utility people, at 

our request, shut the fluoride off. And they used a 

sodium fluoride gravity-feed system at both treatment 

plants. 

Just some equipment that we used to monitor: pressure 

loggers. And these are the water-quality monitoring 

systems. There's a dual-probe system that's ion specific. 

In this case, it can measure fluoride and what we specify: 

fluoride and chloride and then conductivity in the other 

probe plus pH temperature. The single probe can measure 

conductivity and -- but is not ion specific. 

This is the way we attached it in the field, putting 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
78 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

them in some plastic housing and then strapping it to the 

hydrant and flowing the hydrant. And then we also 

obtained grab samples as well and did some QAQC on site 

as well as sending grab samples off to the federal 

occupational health lab in Chicago. 

This map here shows the monitoring locations, and 

you've got that in the reports. We had 27 different 

monitoring locations for the Hadnot Point. We had nine 

pressure; nine dual-probe locations, where we did fluoride 

and chloride; and then nine, just conductivity locations. 

As I said, pressure ranges basically between about 55 

and 65 PSI and fairly constant. And the topography is 

fairly flat there as well, which gives you very small 

hydraulic gradients. And realizing that, that was one of 

the reasons behind us doing tracer tests, as we felt we 

would not get any kind of unique calibration even on the 

present day just looking at hydraulics. 

This is some -- I'm just going to show you some data 

from this test. This is injecting calcium chloride. This 

is at location F-02. The red line is a model simulation, 

and the -- or the solid line is a model simulation, and 

the dots are the data recovered by the logger. Here is 

an example -- this square box is the injection time and 

at location F-01, which is -- let's see where is -- on 

my map, it's at Hadnot Point, which is (off microphone) -- 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
79 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

COURT REPORTER: Microphone. 

MR. MASLIA: Hadnot Point was located right over 

here. That's F-02. And, of course, what we found out 

that that's about a 20-hour lag and which greatly exceeded 

what we predicted in the model even though the model 

wasn't calibrated. And so we had thought there may have 

been some closed valves, and post-test auditing by the 

water utility, in fact, confirmed we had four closed 

valves. 

And you've also got this drawing in the notebook that 

we gave you. But you can see right over here. Here was 

the source at the treatment plant. So we've got down here 

a couple of hour travel time, down in here, down to here 

about nine hours; but all the way up to here, between 20 

and 26 hours, right here. So that obviously shows the 

effect of the closed valves and low demand as well. So it 

just stayed in the system there. 

This slide shows you the fluoride concentration in 

the tanks. We had requested that the utility shut the 

fluoride off on May 15th. The test took place the week of 

May 24th. And, in fact, water samples, taken by the 

utility within -- at the distribution-sampling point 

showed concentrations of fluoride down around between .1 

and .2, so it had diluted down. 

But the concentrations in the tanks ranged between -- 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
80 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

almost averaged about one from these three tanks. This is 

the controlling tank right down here. So, of course, it's 

exchanging water back and forth. So it's getting the -- 

it's diluting; whereas, these tanks over here really did 

not show much dilution. 

This is an example of -- and it caught us by surprise 

when we -- in the beginning since we didn't understand how 

they were operating the tanks and that. Here is some grab 

sample data of the fluoride, and this is a logger that was 

near the French Creek tank, which is the controlling tank, 

which was this tank right over here. 

And unfortunately, we had to pull the logger for 

technical reasons. But we still see the grab sample data 

rising and chloride concentration indicating a slug coming 

through here. And then 48 hours later, all of a sudden, 

we see a slug of -- we reconnected the logger, and we see 

a slug coming through. 

And that is sort of what guided us and then in a 

subsequent test in instrumenting the tanks, putting 

loggers on the tanks and seeing that the water was not 

mixing completely in the tanks. 

DR. WALSKI: When you say putting a logger in a tank, 

are you sampling the pipe going into the tank at ground 

level or are you taking sample from inside the tank and -- 

MR. MASLIA: Not from inside. We're putting it on 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
81 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the pipe. And we can see -- and I've got some data to 

show -- on a subsequent test, you can tell which is the 

system fluoride and which is the tank fluoride -- 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. 

MR. MASLIA: -- by the spiking, by the spiking of the 

logger data, in other words, so you know what elsewhere in 

the system, what the fluoride level is. And then all of a 

sudden you see a high spike coming through the logger, 

which is interpreted to be the tank releasing water to the 

system. And that's when it's -- that's when you're 

shutting off the fluoride. 

Just the opposite is true when you're increasing the 

fluoride in the system. You'll see low fluoride from the 

tank now going in the logger as opposed to higher fluoride 

from the system. And I'll show that in just a few 

minutes. 

Okay. We conducted the hydraulic test in the week of 

August 25th. Again, this was to determine some C-factors, 

and we used sort of an innovative fire-flow testing 

technique where we opened up several -- several hydrants 

at the -- at different times. We found eight. I think we 

tested eight different sections of pipe. One of -- 

because of the piping construction and layout, we were 

really trying to look at the -- get some information on 

the Hadnot Point area. But it was just not possible to 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
82 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

find, say, a thousand-foot long section of pipe with three 

adjacent hydrants. 

We scoured the maps and stuff and went out in the 

field, and that just was not a possibility. So we did do 

fire-flow tests in that area, but -- and for the C-factor 

test, we used a diffuser, and then we also used a pitot 

gauge for the fire-flow test in combination with this 

diffuser. 

And this is actually from the summary I showed you 

before, the three C-factors. These are the actual values 

that came out, and they were pretty much -- as I said, on 

the average, they were within the literature published 

about values. For the fire-flow tests, what we did: We 

sort of modified the standard approach of putting a gauge 

on one hydrant and flowing the other. What we did is we 

used, in this case, two hydrants, flowing -- this is 

flowing Hydrant 1 here and Hydrant 2 there. 

So we would have a static pressure, which you can see 

basically is about 50 to 53 psi on the observation 

hydrants. Then we flowed Hydrant 1, which would be this 

one, 773 gallons per minute. And you can see the pressure 

drop across all the hydrants. Then we flowed Hydrants 1 

and 2. So we'd flow this hydrant and that hydrant, and 

you'd see a further pressure drop right there. 

So that's the total flow coming out. It was about 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
83 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

1300 gallons per minutes. And then, of course, we shut 

off Hydrant 1 and only flowed Hydrant 2 and then go back 

to the static case. So that one came out very well, and 

that was to help us with calibration. 

Finally, we conducted, based on our observation of 

what we saw in May with the Hadnot Point with the 

concentrations going -- or being delayed and coming in at 

a later time than we expected at the tanks, we thought we 

would instrument the controlling tanks. 

So we had the water utility put some ports on the 

pipes leading to the storage tanks, and in this case, we 

had two controlling tanks. We had one at Paradise Point, 

which would be right over here. That's controlling -- 

that's a controlling tank for the Hadnot Point waterdistribution system. And then the Camp Johnson tank, 

which is the controlling tank for the Tarawa Terrace 

distribution system. 

So again, based on the water level in those tanks, 

that's what triggers the high-lift pumps to turn on or not 

turn on. And I just -- I showed you there. We monitored 

the system. We used -- we've got nine of the loggers. So 

we monitored the fluoride. We shut off the fluoride and 

recorded as it was diluting. 

And then we had the utility turn the fluoride back on 

and record the increase in fluoride. We did not do any 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
84 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

injection on this test. And so, Tom, you were asking 

about the storage tanks. This is a picture of the 

Paradise Point storage tank, the piping. And right over 

here is piping going in and one coming out. And so our 

loggers attached right here and on the outside of the 

actual housing but -- so depending which way the water 

would go, we would either get inflow or outflow and be 

able to record the fluoride concentration in the logger. 

DR. WALSKI: Is that one tap or two taps? 

MR. MASLIA: That's two taps. 

DR. WALSKI: It's two taps. 

MR. MASLIA: Two taps. 

COURT REPORTER: Microphone, please. 

DR. WALSKI: Mike. Okay. It's two taps, but how do 

you know that you're not getting the old -- the wrong 

water, if you had two taps like that? That it's -- 

MR. MASLIA: If it's going -- if it's going in -- and 

I'm trying to remember. I think it goes in -- 

DR. WALSKI: Usually, it fills through the smaller 

one. 

MR. MASLIA: Going in this way. Right. That's the 

smaller pipe, going in this way. Then when it comes out, 

it's going to come out that way. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. But some of the -- well, that's 

okay. It's probably a very minor thing. Don't worry. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
85 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MASLIA: So here are a couple of loggers. F-01 

is the source. That was put at the -- on the Venturi 

meter or near the Venturi meter at Holcomb Boulevard 

water-treatment plant. So that's essentially your source. 

This dotted line here indicates when we shut the 

fluoride off, which was at 1600 hours on September 22nd. 

And then we turned it back on at 1200 hours on September 

29th. And Logger No. 3 was located down here. So Logger 

No. 1 is over here. Logger No. 3 is here. And you can 

sort of see the time it takes between here and here. So 

that's your -- you know, you could estimate an average 

travel time from there. 

This is the example of the loggers connected to the 

controlling tanks. F-08 is the controlling tank at 

Paradise Point, which is this one over here. And F-09 is 

the Camp Johnson tank. That's basically the end of the 

distribution system as it is today. So, for example, 

right here, as the system water is being diluted, the 

system water -- and that's -- our grab samples show that 

too is down around .2. 

So you've shut off the fluoride here, and by this 

time the system water is down about .2, but you're getting 

spikes of high -- high fluoride water, which is coming 

from what's in the tanks. Okay. And then just the 

opposite occurs when you're increasing the fluoride in the 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
86 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

system. And, of course, this tank right here, being at 

the end of the system, shows a much more attenuated 

effect. 

One of the issues we ran into and I believe we 

resolved -- but this line down here is the flow of water 

from the ground tank, the Tarawa Terrace ground tank. So 

if Camp Johnson tank is the controlling tank, when the 

Tarawa Terrace pumps come on and it's flowing water, we 

should see changes in the water level in the Camp Johnson 

tank. And the problem is, I believe, there was some SCADA 

and/or telemetry issues because Camp Johnson tank is flatlining. If it's flat-lining, there should be no water 

flowing from the Tarawa Terrace. 

DR. WALSKI: That's not flat. That's about what 

you'd -- 

DR. JOHNSON: Microphone. Mike; please. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. It's not going to drop 

dramatically because it takes a long time. So it dropped 

1 or 2 feet -- 

MR. MASLIA: Over here. This is flat. That's not 

dropping. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. From there, it's -- 

MR. MASLIA: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 

DR. WALSKI: There are -- it is -- 

MR. MASLIA: No. No. No. I'm talking about right 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
87 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

here. 

DR. WALSKI: But there's some issues with SCADA, in 

that just the lag time that SCADA doesn't continuously 

monitor and you may miss. 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

DR. WALSKI: So it's not unlikely to happen, what you 

see. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. Lack of -- lack of meter data. 

We were going with the concept of a district metering 

area. So, in other words, because we did not have -- or 

we do not have household meters, we were going to meter 

certain areas and then be able to come up with per capita 

demand in that area. Sixteen meters have been installed. 

And we've got eight in the Holcomb Boulevard and Tarawa 

Terrace area. 

So, for example, say, in Berkeley Manor, by knowing 

the flows and from here, here, and here, we would be able 

to come up with a per capita estimate or quantity. And 

this, in fact, there's a paper that just came out in 2004, 

talking about that. I've got the reference some place. 

But basically, using this approach and then trying to 

quantify the stochastic nature of the demand. And that's 

in the Hadnot Point area, meters in the Hadnot Point area. 

And that's it, I think. Oh, five minutes early. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Tom. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
88 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. WALSKI: Well, the question about the metering 

now, you did full-pipe metering; right? You just tapped 

whatever size pipe was there? 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. 

DR. WALSKI: Did you check the model to see what the 

velocities were at those points? 

MR. MASLIA: Actually, we've gotten into that issue, 

and we have done that now. I mean, we have that now. 

We've got an upflows. We've got flows. One of the issues 

that's been run into -- let me just put this up. 

One of the issues that we have run into with the flow 

meters is the calibration process. And our understanding 

is from the vendor -- of course, these meters are 

Dynasonics, and they've got plus or minus 2 percent. 

And the issue is at what magnitude -- if you 

calibrate it for a higher flow and then you're actually 

seeing a predominantly lower flow, you're going to have a 

much larger error than that. And just the opposite: If 

you're calibrating it for lower flow conditions and all of 

a sudden you flow hydrants or whatever, it's not going -- 

so what we have done, we were just up there in March and 

based on seeing the attempt for calibration and seeing 

what we were running into -- and I can pass a couple of 

these around and just -- if anybody wants a full copy, 

then we'll just need to run it through our clearance 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
89 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

people. 

But this is meter by meter location. And we did use 

the models as they are right now. They're not calibrated, 

but we feel they're in the ballpark, in other words. And 

we did both a table basically giving minimum, average, and 

maximum simulated flows, pipe diameter and where they are, 

as well as within each meter giving calibration 

procedures. And then we also had graphs on some of them. 

Where hydrants were available, we'd flow that hydrant to 

change the flow, to check the calibration. 

So we also did graphs. So when you go back out into 

the field to calibrate them, we could know what ranges of 

flows to expect. You know, basically whether you're 

looking at flows below 100 gallons per minute or upwards 

of 600 gallons per minute. So that's where we are with 

that. We haven't gone back out in the field to do that, 

but that's the next plan. I'll just pass one around. 

 (Passing document around) 

MR. MASLIA: If the panel would actually like 

copies -- 

COURT REPORTER: Mike. 

MR. MASLIA: If the panel would like copies, let us 

know and we'll run it off and get it to you. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. The issue I've run into in these 

kind of meters is that, typically, the flows in the normal 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
90 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

distribution system are very low because the pipes are 

sized for fire flow and they're down less than a foot per 

second and these meters are really lousy at a foot per 

second. 

I mean, no matter what you do, you're going to have a 

really bad range. Almost -- usually for this type of 

metering, you've got to go in with a smaller pipe; like if 

you have a 12-inch line, you put in an 8-inch spool piece 

or something like that to get the velocity higher so that 

you get something in a range where it's sensitive because, 

when you're down less than 1 foot per second, no matter 

what you do for calibration, they're just lousy for those 

ranges. So what velocities are you seeing in these pipes? 

MR. MASLIA: Claudia, do we have those? We can get 

those for you. 

MS. VALENZUELA: (Off microphone) 

MR. MASLIA: Yeah; yeah. If you don't mind showing 

-- we'll pull that up for you, if that's okay. 

DR. CLARK: We had some similar experiences in 

Cincinnati when we tried. 

MR. MASLIA: Are you saying so put them in smaller 

diameter pipes or... 

DR. WALSKI: Well, not so much putting them in 

smaller diameter pipes, but mike the pipe down. Like, if 

you have a 12-inch pipe, you don't put in a -- just a 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
91 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12-inch meter. You put in an 8-inch meter so that the 

velocity is higher for a little while and you have -- but 

that's a lot more construction cost, unfortunately. 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

DR. WALSKI: You want to just tap the pipe. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. They've just been tapped now, and 

they've been tapped into a variety of diameter pipes. 

I've got the diameters listed. 

DR. WALSKI: Yeah. They range from 6 to 12. But in 

a 12-inch pipe, to get more than 1 foot per second, you've 

got to be really cranking the water through it. 

MR. MASLIA: Yeah. In fact, we've got one -- well, 

actually that one's not going to be used. We had one in 

24-inch pipe, but that one's not being used. There's no 

flow in that one. Basically, the majority of them are 

12-inch pipes. We've got an 8-inch pipe and then a 16 

inch and a 10 inch. 

DR. WALSKI: So you need almost -- excuse me. You 

need about 500 GPM in a 12-inch pipe to get sensible 

velocity. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. Yes. Yes. And -- 

DR. WALSKI: And in most of the data, you don't have 

that. 

MR. MASLIA: And we've had to get that by flowing 

hydrants. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
92 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. WALSKI: But then when you measure it, though, 

the actual flows you're measuring are going to be below -- 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

DR. WALSKI: -- the sensitivity of the gauge, 

unfortunately. So it's going to be an issue. So -- it's 

just going to be an issue when it comes up. 

DR. JOHNSON: Please. 

DR. UBER: Morris, I've just got a quick kind of a 

boring clarification question here. I was just looking at 

some of the hydraulic gradeline elevation in this Table 1. 

And is this -- this is probably just a typo or something, 

but the controlling tank in the Camp Johnson tank, which 

is, I guess, the controlling tank for Tarawa Terrace, 

that's indicated as having a hydraulic gradeline of 107, 

roughly. Is that wrong, or... 

MR. MASLIA: Which table are you looking at? 

DR. UBER: Table 1 of -- in the present day, right 

after the blue page in mine. The reason why I was asking 

for -- because I was trying to look at hydraulic 

gradelines between the different areas and that's -- you 

know, the controlling tank in Hadnot Point is 160, and in 

Holcomb Boulevard it's 151, and then this is 107. I can't 

imagine there's that kind of losses. 

MR. MASLIA: Oh, that one. 

DR. UBER: I assume that it's a mistake. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
93 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MASLIA: No. No. 

DR. UBER: No. I guess I just don't understand how 

it operates then, but -- so -- well, if that's correct, 

see, there's another. The other tank in Tarawa Terrace, 

which is just, you know, a little ways away, has a 

hydraulic gradeline of -- well, 142 plus 32. So, you 

know, over 170 -- 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: If you add that to that -- 

DR. UBER: We can't go from 170 to 107; can we? 

DR. WALSKI: That's one of the things I pointed out 

in my comments too. 

DR. UBER: Oh, did you? 

DR. WALSKI: It looked inconsistent to me. 

DR. UBER: Oh, okay. The only reason why I was 

asking is that -- I mean, if that were -- I was trying to 

figure out whether there is any -- any infrastructure 

information, having not been to this area or anything like 

that, to indicate likelihood of, if there were 

interconnections, what might be the possibilities of 

shipping water between them, you know, sizes of pumps, 

hydraulic gradeline, you know, that type of thing. And if 

that were true, that that's a controlling tank, it would 

seem to be hard to get water out of Tarawa Terrace -- 

MR. MASLIA: Is that just the tank level or the -- 

DR. UBER: Well, it's the hydraulic gradeline and the 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
94 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

controlling "controlling tank." 

MR. MASLIA: Joel, did you have or Brynn have any -- 

DR. JOHNSON: Come to a mike, please. 

MR. ASHTON: Joel was just telling me -- that was our 

operator -- that the elevation difference between Tarawa 

Terrace and the Montford Point or Camp Johnson tank is 

about 7 feet. 

MR. MASLIA: Seven feet. 

DR. UBER: Okay. So there's a mistake there. 

MR. ASHTON: There must be a mistake there, but 

there's about 7-foot elevation difference between the two. 

DR. UBER: I don't want to belabor the point if it's 

a mistake. I assumed that it was, but -- okay. 

DR. JOHNSON: Well, thank you for the comment. Do 

you have something else? 

DR. WALSKI: Getting back to the graph that Claudia 

put up on the screen, you're going to have problems with 

that -- with these meters then. If the velocity is around 

.1 to .2, you're really down at the very low range of 

where that meter's good, unfortunately. If that's an 

average day kind of condition that she's got there, that 

doesn't bode well for accuracy, unfortunately. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Any further points? 

DR. CLARK: Just a follow-up that we've even found 

some cases where we've got negative velocities when we 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
95 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

knew that wasn't the case. So -- yeah -- at those local 

meters. 

DR. JOHNSON: Morris, thank you for your 

presentation. Why don't you have a seat there at the 

table? And I would also ask Dr. Bove to join Mr. Maslia 

at the table. Let us turn to the set of questions and 

issues that the agency asked that you consider. And there 

is a revision to this, but the revision is being passed 

around. 

The first question is -- and we've had some 

substantive discussion on this already, but... 

Are the distribution-system tests conducted to date 

and the one planned for summer 2005 sufficient to provide 

ATSDR with required data for reliable calibration of 

present-day models? 

Tom, would you like to take a lead on that? 

DR. WALSKI: Yeah. It's outstanding. I mean, it's 

the best data study I've ever seen, probably. And it's 

probably more than they need for this study because you're 

not really doing fire-flow analyses. So you don't really 

need those high-flow tests. So, if anything, it's a 

little bit of overkill. But they did a great job. 

DR. JOHNSON: Other comments from the panel? 

DR. CLARK: That was my reaction too, that they're 

really kind of a state of the art of testing from what 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
96 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

I've seen so far. 

DR. JOHNSON: Turning to Question 2 then: 

Considering the lack of household-consumption data and 

diurnal-curve characteristics, will applying the "district 

metering area approach," using the 16 system flow meters, 

provide adequate and sufficient information to develop per 

capita consumption data and diurnal-curve characteristics? 

Are panel members aware of other approaches that could be 

useful? 

DR. WALSKI: Well, the more rudimentary way to do it 

is just to do a mass balance on the system. You look at 

flow in, plus or minus changing tank levels, on an hour by 

hour basis. And that's usually good enough when you don't 

have submetering because, unfortunately, as I was saying 

here, the velocities are so low at those points that the 

accuracy of these gauges aren't going to be that good at 

those really low velocities. So just the mass-balance 

approach may be adequate. 

MR. MASLIA: Can I ask a qualifying question? Do you 

not need to then have, you know, reliable SCADA 

information for that? 

DR. WALSKI: Right. Yes. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. And -- 

DR. WALSKI: And that's -- 

MR. MASLIA: At least we've been informed that, you 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
97 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

know, the SCADA equipment is old at Camp Lejeune. And, 

you know, at some points in time -- at least some times 

when we were testing the test, there is some question as 

to their reliability, that it doesn't have it. So that 

was one of the issues we had discussed with the folks at 

Lejeune is -- as to why we decided to go with a metering 

approach. So -- but you would need the reliable SCADA 

information then. 

DR. WALSKI: Right. The question though is usually 

it's a lot cheaper to recalibrate the SCADA system than it 

is to put in all these meters and the vaults and all that. 

But that's something where I don't know the details. So I 

couldn't really say. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. 

MR. HARDING: I think we have to keep in mind the 

purpose for the estimates of water use. And I'm not 

completely clear on that. I think in Tarawa Terrace we've 

decided we probably don't need it, other than to deal with 

the well cycling. And in this particular circumstance, I 

-- now, it's referring specifically to the work at Hadnot 

Point; right? 

It isn't clear to me that we're going to -- that a 

model is required at Hadnot Point if our second objective 

is to establish an unexposed population. So I think we 

just need to keep that in mind. But get -- if we do want 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
98 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to establish hourly or subdaily water-use characteristics 

at the water-treatment plant, then I think Tom's right, 

that it's much easier to measure tank levels and flows at 

the plant than it is out in the system. 

DR. BOVE: Let me just say one thing. We do want to 

know who was exposed to TCE. So we do want to know not 

only who's unexposed but who -- how many were exposed to 

Hadnot Point. 

Originally, when we did the earlier study, we had a 

very small group that we thought were exposed to Hadnot 

Point. We found an odds ratio of 1.5 for small-forgestational age, if I remember right. But we would like 

to also look at trichloroethylene if the numbers are 

there. And the numbers would be there if we find that 

some of the Hadnot Point water went to Holcomb Boulevard 

for any length of time beyond '73 or whatever. 

DR. WALSKI: Was there distribution -- or any kind of 

distribution measurements of TCE at Hadnot Point, or is -- 

I mean, we talked to Jerry during the break and he says 

there were well measurements, but were there any 

distribution measurements of TCE? 

DR. BOVE: At Hadnot Point? 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: Yeah; at Hadnot Point. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay; because I wasn't seeing it in this 

one list. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
99 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. BOVE: In the old assessment, there were. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Let me go back -- the recorder has a 

question. 

COURT REPORTER: Well, the recorder didn't hear what 

was coming from behind me, and I think it was the answer 

to one of the questions. So it's not in the record. If 

you want it in the record, please, identify yourself and 

get to a microphone. 

MS. HOSSOM: Okay. 

COURT REPORTER: Thank you. 

MS. HOSSOM: Hi, I'm Carole Hossom. I wrote the 1997 

Public Health Assessment. And at Hadnot Point, I believe 

the data shows -- excuse me -- 1400 parts per billion TCE 

at Hadnot Point. 

DR. BOVE: Tap sample? 

MS. HOSSOM: Excuse me? 

DR. BOVE: Tap sample? 

MS. HOSSOM: Tap; drinking-water sample. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. Was that -- so there was one 

measurement made there historically, or were there -- 

MS. HOSSOM: No. There were a few, but a handful. 

DR. WALSKI: That was the range of numbers because it 

wasn't on this summary sheet here, and that's why I was 

asking if we had much. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
100 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. LABOLLE: Okay. Was TCE the principal 

contaminant there, or was there also PCE? 

MS. HOSSOM: For Hadnot Point, TCE was the principle 

contaminant and degradation products of TCE, not PCE. 

MR. HARDING: Okay. While you're there, don't -- 

because if I recall correctly -- I don't have that open in 

front me -- there was also an estimate of vinyl chloride. 

MS. HOSSOM: Right. 

MR. HARDING: Was that -- was that at any measurement 

of that, or was that just a calculation based on assumed 

degradation? 

MS. HOSSOM: It was a -- because the laboratorydetection limit was only ten parts per billion, the -- it 

was estimated at below that to be eight. Although it was 

not calibrated below ten, it was an estimated measured 

value. 

MR. HARDING: Okay. So it was detected. 

MS. HOSSOM: It was detected. 

MR. HARDING: But not quantifiable. 

MS. HOSSOM: But not quantifiable. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: So is that a quantitation limit, 

you're talking about, and not a detection? 

MS. HOSSOM: Correct. It was quantified, but it was 

below the limit. So that's how it was reported as an 

estimated detected value as opposed to not detected. Does 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
101 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that clarify that? 

MR. HARDING: Uh-huh. 

MS. HOSSOM: Okay. So Hadnot Point was TCE. Tarawa 

Terrace was PCE; majority contaminants and then 

degradation products. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thanks. 

MS. HOSSOM: Thank you. 

DR. JOHNSON: So with regard to Question 2, Morris, 

what do you think you have heard? 

MR. MASLIA: I've forgot to give myself a copy. 

MR. HARDING: Well, can I -- 

DR. JOHNSON: Please, Ben. 

MR. HARDING: I'm still not sure we can answer 

Question 2 yet because I'm confused again. And forgive 

me, but, Dr. Bovey -- 

DR. BOVE: Bove. 

MR. HARDING: Bove. Sorry. I understand now that, 

okay, we're also interested in the TCE exposures in Hadnot 

Point, and you talked about also looking for exposures in 

Holcomb Boulevard. But it seems to me that -- let me just 

see if I can frame this. And I apologize if I get this 

garbled. But in doing this analysis, we're going to 

compare the exposed populations to an unexposed -- I think 

you guys call it -- case control or whatever. 

DR. BOVE: Just keep with exposed and unexposed. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
102 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HARDING: Okay. 

DR. BOVE: Because cases and controls are both 

exposed and unexposed. 

MR. HARDING: Okay. So we have to find -- ideally, 

we'd like to find some populations on the base that were 

exposed to TCE. We already have established that there's 

a likelihood, high likelihood, that you can identify 

populations that were exposed to PCE at Tarawa Terrace. 

But then we also need to find a population that's 

unexposed. So that population that's unexposed would 

potentially be in Holcomb Boulevard during periods when 

the two weren't interconnected. 

DR. BOVE: Right. 

MR. HARDING: Okay. Now -- 

DR. BOVE: But -- but there are interconnections. 

And that's what I'm concerned about. 

MR. HARDING: Well, representing those 

interconnections is the complicated part of this. So the 

question I have is -- is that: Can you select your 

unexposed population from time periods where we're 

reasonably certain there were no interconnections, where 

Holcomb Boulevard operated independently of the other 

water-distribution systems? 

DR. BOVE: Well, that's the question, though, I 

think; isn't it? 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
103 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HARDING: Well, no. Is it adequate for your 

purposes? is what I'm asking. You don't have to -- do you 

have to -- do you have to have an unexposed population 

that goes from 1968 to 1985, or can you pick a population 

that, potentially, let's just say, from 1971 to 1981? 

DR. BOVE: No. We have to be able to determine for 

that whole period who was exposed and who was unexposed. 

Okay. So -- and if we -- we can misclassify people as 

exposed or unexposed, but we need to know that. 

MR. HARDING: Okay. Well, can we have three groups: 

exposed with some degree of certainty; unexposed with some 

degree of certainty; and we don't know, which we put 

aside? See what I'm saying? 

DR. BOVE: See, the design of the study is that you 

-- we use the whole time period as the -- I mean, the 

population is all the births during that time period. 

Okay. We take a sample of all the cases from that time 

period, and we take a sample of controls. The controls 

are supposed to give us some reflection of the exposure -- 

the proportion exposed in that population. That's the 

purpose of a control series. 

We're using that whole time period. So we have cases 

during that whole time period. We'll have controls during 

that whole time period. We need to assign exposure 

properly to those cases and controls. So the -- in the 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
104 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

previous study we didn't do a case-control sample. We can 

do what you suggested because we can just -- we took 

everybody. So we can decide, all right, we'll just take 

this part of the population. But with a case-control 

sample, you take a sample of that whole population. You 

have to be able to assign exposure for that whole period 

of time. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: As I recall, the Holcomb Boulevard 

came on-line in '73, the treatment plant. Is that -- 

MR. MASLIA: Between '71 and '73. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Somewhere in that time period. 

MR. MASLIA: Yeah. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: So -- and then the interconnection 

was turned off. 

MR. MASLIA: No. We don't know. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: We don't know that for sure? 

MR. MASLIA: We know -- 

DR. DOUGHERTY: And we know that -- 

MR. MASLIA: -- at certain times, we know the 

interconnection between Hadnot Point and Holcomb 

Boulevard. I believe it's January. There is a date on 

the chronology. January of '85, we know there's a period 

in there that there was an interconnection because of a 

failure of a pump or whatever at Holcomb Boulevard. So 

there was an interconnection. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
105 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. DOUGHERTY: And at the other end, we know that 

the connection at Tarawa Terrace came in somewhere in the 

'85 and possibly '84 with a temporary line. Maybe even 

'83, I think we heard, with a temporary line. So the 

period prior to 1971, we can say pretty much with 

certainty that Holcomb Boulevard people received water 

from Hadnot Point, which makes the classification 

straightforward. And let's see -- 

MR. HARDING: Well, you're a groundwater modeler, so 

you shouldn't be saying that. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: No. This is strictly about whether 

there's a possibility as in a pipeline -- 

MR. HARDING: Yes. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- that exists or doesn't exist. And 

so we can take care of that much of the window. You can 

fill in the rest of the blanks. 

MR. HARDING: Well, but the reason -- I may be 

belaboring this point. But the reason is is that I'm 

trying to establish whether there's a way to avoid trying 

to do the complex and the highly uncertain waterdistribution modeling, given the very sparse amount of 

facts we have about it. 

And if -- and I want to put this question to the 

panel. Maybe you'll tell me to shut up about this. But 

the level -- we don't need to know a lot about the diurnal 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
106 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

patterns of demand, if we're going to use more of a massbalance approach to this. And so if we have this period 

of time -- is it weeks? months? years? -- that we 

absolutely must include to complete this study, that's a 

different story than if we can pick the times when we have 

reasonably good certainty. 

If we have to include all of these periods, it's my 

opinion that we have to be very honest about the very high 

degree of uncertainty in the periods where we're doing 

water distribution fate and transport model. So I don't 

know. I'd like to hear what other people have to say 

because I've beat this horse pretty hard. 

MR. ASHTON: I would just like to clarify one thing. 

DR. JOHNSON: Come on up. 

MR. ASHTON: There's a little bit of confusion about 

when the systems were interconnected. After this '72 

plant was constructed, unfortunately, the two systems -- 

Hadnot Point and Holcomb -- they're at different 

pressures. There are quite a bit of difference in the 

elevation of the water tanks. So we keep, normally, those 

belts closed. 

The operational procedure now -- and I'm not sure how 

long this dates back. But we contact the State when we 

open those valves to get approval for interconnecting the 

systems. We have two different operating permits for the 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
107 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

systems. And so those systems are separate, and they're 

kept separate. 

The line that we were talking about yesterday between 

the Holcomb system and the Tarawa Terrace system, that is 

something that has been confused, and we're in the process 

of clarifying it with both the construction drawings that 

we have to install the lines and also the operators that 

are familiar with the system. And we'll clarify that for 

you very soon, and that's what we're working on right now. 

But the people aren't here that have that information. 

But we feel it's in our construction drawings. 

DR. BOVE: Would there be a record of every time you 

connected Holcomb Boulevard and Hadnot Point then? 

MR. ASHTON: That's unfortunate. I don't believe 

there is unless the State has -- 

DR. BOVE: But if you record -- that's what I mean. 

MR. ASHTON: -- unless the State has a record, which 

they might. 

DR. BOVE: Okay. 

MR. ASHTON: And I have no way of knowing what they 

have. But we'll try to find that out. We've got a 

request -- there's been some turnover at the State. We 

have a request through the State to try to get -- see what 

records they do and don't have, so... 

MR. HARDING: Is there a distinct grade difference 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
108 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

between the three systems, and if so, can you say 

nominally what the -- what grades they were, what grades 

they ran at? 

MR. ASHTON: Yeah. I don't have the exact 

information of the difference in the elevation between the 

Hadnot Point and the Holcomb. 

MR. HARDING: Which one was higher? 

MR. ASHTON: Okay. I believe -- I believe the newer 

system is higher, if I'm not mistaken. 

MR. HARDING: The newer being Holcomb? 

MR. ASHTON: Meaning the Holcomb system, I believe. 

But I can verify that. The -- as Joel says, he wasn't 

sure which system -- the tanks, of course, were not -- 

there were quite a bit of difference in the tank levels. 

And, of course, we try to keep our tanks full for fireprotection purposes, and that is the reason why that valve 

is normally closed and we have two separate systems. 

DR. UBER: Just on that point, the data in that same 

Table 1 shows a 9-foot grade difference from -- actually, 

contrary to what you said from Holcomb -- I'm sorry, from 

Hadnot Point to Holcomb in that direction for the 

controlling tanks. 

MR. ASHTON: So you're saying that the Holcomb plant 

is lower, you're saying? 

DR. UBER: That's what -- just -- that's just what 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
109 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

this data in the table shows -- 

MR. ASHTON: And I'll verify that. 

DR. UBER: -- by 9 feet. 

MR. ASHTON: That's -- that's -- we have records of 

all the differences in elevations. The guys who -- the 

guys that had that plan, he'd have it off the top of his 

head, but I don't, unfortunately. 

DR. UBER: Yeah. I mean, that would be -- that's, of 

course, quite useful information to know in terms of 

interconnectedness. So that would be -- that would be 

good. 

MR. ASHTON: The USGS has took with them all of the 

elevations. So we have all that information. 

MR. MASLIA: We have land-surface elevations at the 

tanks. 

DR. JOHNSON: Ben had put on the table sort of a 

request for reaction to a proposal. I didn't hear much 

reaction. Did I miss something? 

DR. CLARK: I can give you my answer to Question 2, 

and I think the answer's yes. I think it's probably the 

best way you can go about it to develop diurnal patterns 

using this district metering approach, given the fact that 

you don't have other data available. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Let's move on to Question 3. 

MR. MASLIA: Can I ask a question? 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
110 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. JOHNSON: Sure; of course. 

MR. MASLIA: And it's sort of encompassing early -- 

both days, and it's more of a, I guess, philosophical one. 

But I'll ask it anyway. 

We acknowledge, both on the epidemiologic side as 

well as the modeling side, that there's a great deal of 

uncertainty. But what I'm hearing is -- or what I'm 

interpreting is that perhaps we should just throw our 

hands up even if we quantify it or make a gross 

assumption, very simplifying assumption, and that is, not 

degrading that approach. That may be a valid approach. 

But then the agency still has other parties to answer to. 

And so my question is: How does the agency go about 

saying -- do we go about saying that this is the best we 

can do and we can refine it no further, or do we -- that's 

what I'm trying to clarify. 

DR. WALSKI: Here's what I was going to suggest later 

on -- 

MR. MASLIA: Yeah. 

DR. WALSKI: -- but since you brought it up now, I 

might as well talk about. It seems like -- my approach 

would be is to take what you've got now and say, "Okay. 

We know these people were exposed. We know these weren't. 

We're not sure about these." And in about six months use 

the model as best I can -- in about six months, study, 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
111 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

write your report, and say that we could spend another two 

or three years on this and we can refine the numbers a 

little bit. 

But, unless you have some hope that two or three 

years of more work is really going to make the numbers 

better, I think, you know, wrapping up the modeling part 

of this in a short time and saying this is -- this is -- 

call it interim report to cover yourself. But say, "You 

know, we can -- you know, in a couple of months we can 

wrap this thing up, give you a good answer, and maybe we 

can get it 2 percent better if we spend another three 

years on it or something" is the way, I think, it's going 

to all play out is my prediction. And I could be totally 

wrong in it. You probably have some people... 

DR. JOHNSON: And my opinion is: Someone who doesn't 

know much about this whole area of work, they're -- one of 

the parties you have to be concerned about is the 

scientific community. And I always found it very useful 

to try to anchor on those data that you had confidence in. 

And things that might rise to the level of speculation you 

discard, unless there's some really good reason for doing 

otherwise. 

And so your response to those other parties who may 

want you to do God-awful things that may surpass your 

ability to do, you simply have to say that that's not 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
112 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

possible. The science just doesn't take us that far. And 

we are going to base our work, whether it's in the area of 

water modeling or epidemiology, on the most reliable data 

in which we have confidence. And that's as far as we can 

go. That's as far as the science will let us -- take us. 

DR. BOVE: Well, I still think there's a lot of work 

that could be done to get other data that's available, 

both records from the state, if necessary, or other memos 

and material that might give us a sense of how -- whether 

these systems were in -- used in an interconnected 

fashion. 

And so I think that that's, more than modeling, is 

what I would push for. It's a lot more of getting that 

information from the vault that would help us clarify some 

of these questions. 

DR. JOHNSON: That may be true, but you have to ask 

the question of: Well, what's it worth? And what am I 

willing to invest to go beyond what I have now with which 

I have some confidence? And as Tom characterized it 

earlier this morning, you're getting into perhaps the area 

of archaeology and that's -- may be quite appropriate. Do 

you -- I think you have to do something akin to kind of a 

cost-benefit effort to determine if it's worth it. 

MR. HARDING: I would say that along those lines that 

the question can be framed as: Where do you want to spend 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
113 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

your resources? And let me first respond to Morris and 

say, if you're interpreting what I was saying, I'm not 

saying throw up your hands at all. 

What I'm -- what I'm advising is essentially the same 

thing here is that we ought to ask ourselves: Where can we 

get the most bang for our buck? And if I had to say right 

now where that is, it's in trying to refine the 

understanding of when the contaminants reached the wells 

at Tarawa Terrace and then -- I don't think we have much 

of an understanding about what happened at the wells at 

Hadnot Point if we're looking for exposures to TCE. So 

those are two areas where more emphasis could be put than 

on the water-distribution modeling. 

And then when we get back to this issue of Holcomb 

Boulevard, the purpose of the Holcomb Boulevard analysis 

is to establish unexposed populations. And I think that 

you have to ask yourself: If we've got these sporadic and 

poorly defined periods where there was potentially some 

contamination in that system, think about whether you can 

exclude those periods from your analysis as a way of 

saving a huge amount of effort that can be spent better, 

to my way of thinking, in trying to reconstruct, for 

example, what happened at Hadnot Point in the groundwater. 

So that's my take on it, and that's why I've been 

asking these questions now because I'm not sure that the 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
114 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- if you want to do diurnal-demand reconstruction, 

there's various ways to do it. But I'm not sure whether 

you need to or not. That's my point. That's why I was 

having trouble answering the question. 

DR. WALSKI: The impact of your suggestion is (off 

microphone). 

DR. BOVE: We would lose some cases in a situation 

where we already have a small number of cases, and we 

would have to take a new sample of controls to fit the new 

population we're talking about. We've already sampled 

control, sent them to the vendor. We could -- and the 

process of interviewing will start, as you heard, next 

week. But that could be put on hold. 

But my problem with this is that we don't know. I 

mean, we can -- I guess we can -- I mean, we don't know 

when the interconnections could have occurred, I mean, you 

know, the water flowing back and forth. So when would you 

say -- what groups of people, what periods of time should 

we exclude from our study? 

MR. HARDING: Well, let me put the question another 

way. If you don't know when the interconnections 

occurred, how are you going to model them? I think you 

just have to bite this bullet. And you have to -- here is 

our best determination of when these systems were -- you 

have to do this no matter what. You have to say when were 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
115 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

they connected and when were they unconnected. And what 

I'm saying is: Once you've made that determination, don't 

take the effort to model the interconnections. 

DR. BOVE: No. Right. And I'd like to get these 

records from the state, if they exist. 

MR. HARDING: Well, I think that's -- I think that's 

a good way to spend your money, and I think that doing the 

archeology in a case like this may well be warranted to 

figure out what happened. But once you've figured that 

out, then -- then really you've got to ask the question: 

Is it worth spending an enormous amount of energy to model 

these relatively short periods at the expense of doing 

what I think is more important? 

 And here, I'm speaking here as a ground -- or as a 

water-distribution person. But I think that the 

groundwater case at Hadnot Point is -- am I missing 

something, or do we know anything about the historical 

pattern of contamination at Hadnot Point? 

DR. WALSKI: I think one of the things we talked 

about yesterday was, it's so complex that we really can't 

model it though. We kind of threw up our hands on that 

one and said, "We know there was contamination, and we 

know well-monitoring points, but there are so many sources 

there -- 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: Yeah. Didn't I hear 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
116 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

160-something? 

DR. WALSKI: -- but I can't tell exactly which source 

went to which well. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: That was the limit of information 

that we've had to review. So the answer is: I don't know. 

We may have some kind of generalizations. 

DR. BOVE: I mean, we've been asked to determine when 

contamination arrived at Hadnot Point too. I mean, this 

is -- this was our charge early on. So forget the study 

for a minute. We were asked that question. And there are 

people out there who want to know the answer to that. And 

I don't know if we can provide that, if that's what you're 

saying, because of the multisources, and we don't have 

that information on those sources. 

DR. JOHNSON: I think Jerry has a point to share, 

please. 

MR. ENSMINGER: As far as the actual contamination of 

the Hadnot Point water system, you have earlier recorded 

data at the Hadnot Point system, actual analytical data, 

than you do at the Tarawa Terrace system. You have a 

report of October of 1980 from the Army hygienic team that 

came in there to do the preliminary test for TTHMs that 

identified chlorinated hydrocarbons in their water, 

extremely high levels. 

And behind that, in parenthesis, he wrote "solvents." 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
117 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

And they had several tests. They didn't find the 

hydrocarbons in Tarawa Terrace until 1982. But you do 

have analytical data which shows the actual contamination 

of the Hadnot Point system in 1980 prior to Tarawa 

Terrace. 

DR. BOVE: But we don't have it before that, and 

that's -- 

DR. JOHNSON: Speak in the mike, please. 

DR. BOVE: What we're trying to find out, though, is 

when the contamination first arrived. I mean, that -- 

that's going to be the difficulty. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Well, the hottest well in Tarawa -- 

or at Hadnot Point was Well 651. We do have the 

historical data as to when that well was constructed, and 

it was 1972. And it was constructed at the back corner 

of the disposal lot, which had been in operation for some 

30-odd years at that time. And when it was tested, it was 

27,000 parts per billion of VOCs. I mean, it's not hard 

to figure out that that well was contaminated the day it 

was sunk. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you very much. 

DR. WALSKI: But you don't need a model to prove that 

though. I think that's the point. We can do that without 

doing sophisticated modeling for that. 

DR. CLARK: Frank, what do you think the potential is 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
118 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

for getting more data from the state that may be better to 

find exposures in the system? Does anyone know that? 

Does anyone know that? 

MR. MASLIA: Early on, we -- Bob Faye and I went up 

to Raleigh to look through the historical records, and in 

the historical records, we found some information for the 

forties, fifties, sixties, and then nothing after 1969 

until the 1990s. There's not a single sheet anywhere. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. I want to move on to Question 3. 

Is ATSDR's approach of developing three water-distribution 

system models appropriate to address answers needed for 

the epi study? 

DR. CLARK: I think it is. 

DR. JOHNSON: Lord love you for that. Thank you for 

that answer. 

MR. HARDING: I don't think, based on what I know, 

that it makes sense to develop models for these systems. 

That's based on what I know right now is, that in the 

sense of using a modeling code -- I mean, all of what 

we're going to be doing is modeling. But a simple mixing 

model, I think, is appropriate. 

The time when you would need to do something more 

sophisticated is during these periods of interconnection, 

which we can't even define and potentially will never be 

able to define. So based on that, I think that, yes, 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
119 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

three models are appropriate. But they aren't -- they 

don't need to be a fully sophisticated hydraulic water 

distribution fate and transport model. 

DR. JOHNSON: Well, that's a substantive comment. 

How does the rest of the panel feel? 

DR. LABOLLE: I thought I heard something previously 

regarding the need to go back historically, in a related 

study or as part of this study or an extended part of this 

study, and look at cancer risks. And in that context, I 

think, I see that the Hadnot Point was connected with the 

Holcomb Boulevard system during the period that you had 

mentioned. 

And if that's the case, possibly in those -- you 

know, those subtime periods there where there's the 

interconnection is here, employing. But other than those 

periods, I tend to concur from what I've heard here that 

the sophistication in the models may be sufficient at this 

point to answer some of the questions. 

DR. CLARK: I think the sophistication should be at a 

level that you can create some typical diurnal-exposure 

curves. That's my opinion. 

DR. WALSKI: Mine is that it's probably not worth the 

effort, given the amount of data we have here. We'll 

disagree to -- 

DR. CLARK: We'll disagree on that. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
120 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. JOHNSON: James. 

DR. UBER: I think that -- so first of all, the issue 

of interconnectiveness is different from the issue of 

understanding temporal -- or diurnal variation in 

concentration. What I'm hearing and what I would agree 

with is that more archaeology on the interconnectiveness 

should precede further refinement of the waterdistribution system models. 

I think that if you found through the archaeology 

that the interconnections were frequent and of long 

duration that that would be different from finding out 

that, you know, there was never any period when Holcomb 

was putting out less than one MGD. And therefore, from a 

simple flow balance, you cannot have had significant 

contribution of water in that area from another system, 

you know. 

So I think that -- I think that the effort needs to 

be driven by those kinds of factors. I frankly don't 

think that the information is on the table right now to 

know -- to answer that question. 

DR. KONIKOW: The distribution model -- in terms of 

when the interconnection was opened, I'm assuming that 

that connection was not the only source of water to 

Holcomb Boulevard, or was it? Because if it wasn't, then 

the distribution model could help refine which 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
121 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

neighborhoods or sections received water from Hadnot Point 

versus which did not. And that might be very useful. 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

MR. HARDING: I might add that the point Jim made 

earlier on the elevations of these tanks will prove to be 

critical in that assessment because, if our goal is to 

isolate the Holcomb Boulevard population, if that ran at a 

higher grade than Hadnot Point, then we've got the answer. 

But it isn't clear at this point. 

DR. LABOLLE: I think, also, it's important to keep 

in mind that when you're all done and you're refining, for 

example, these diurnal curves that the source 

concentrations to these systems are going to vary over 

orders of magnitude potentially. And potentially -- and I 

say "vary in time" -- the actual source may have. 

And the uncertainty is potentially an order of 

magnitude or more, two orders of magnitude, in these 

concentrations at the wells. And that's due to both 

geologic uncertainty and uncertainty in the source 

concentrations, as David has brought up, so... 

DR. JOHNSON: So what have you heard, sir? 

MR. MASLIA: Well, I go on vacation in about six 

months. No. The -- I mean, we're still -- we're still 

talking about two major issues. One is data discovery, 

and the other, again, is basically using simplified mixing 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
122 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

models. 

DR. JOHNSON: I heard a rather strong endorsement 

that the "archaeology" should be, maybe, pushed before 

other things -- pushed ahead before other things. 

DR. CLARK: Is archaeology the same thing as data 

discovery? 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: I would agree with that; 

yeah. 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes, I think it is. Turning to 

Question 4: Based on information provided by ATSDR -- to 

ATSDR by U.S. Marine Corps, pipelines connecting to Hadnot 

Point water-treatment plant service area with the Holcomb 

Boulevard water-treatment plant service area were opened 

for emergency purposes only. 

Does the panel agree with the ATSDR approach that, 

because of this characteristic, these two areas can be and 

should be modeled as two separate water-distribution 

systems? 

DR. UBER: The answer to that is easy. That's -- if 

we answer yes to that, then -- then that -- then we don't 

need to do the archaeology, and we probably don't need to 

do the distribution-system modeling with -- you know, I 

know that Bob feels differently. So I would say that -- 

I would say that the answer to that is that you have to do 

-- I haven't seen the archeology to support saying yes to 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
123 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that. 

MR. HARDING: The answer is: Challenge the predicate. 

DR. UBER: Yeah. 

DR. JOHNSON: Excuse me? 

MR. HARDING: Challenge the predicate. 

DR. JOHNSON: Challenge the predicate. Do others 

wish to weigh in on this? Peter? 

DR. POMMERENK: I can just agree with the previous 

two speakers. If, for example, during main breaks, those 

valves were open to supply, you know, a portion of either 

system and we can -- certain windows occurred and how 

long, you know, the question would be then: Is that of 

significance for the epi study, if it's just a one-day 

interconnection or not. 

And, you know, if it's not, then, yeah, there is two 

separate systems, and we -- I agree you won't need the 

sophistication of the water-distribution system modeling 

that is conducted right now. 

DR. JOHNSON: Anyone else? I gather this is ATSDR's 

preferred direction: to consider them as two separate 

systems; is that right? 

DR. BOVE: Not if it's not true, it isn't. 

DR. JOHNSON: I don't think that was part of my 

observation. 

DR. BOVE: Sure, that would be the easiest thing. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
124 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. JOHNSON: What will you need to know in order to 

make that decision? 

DR. BOVE: Well, if it was just one day, you know, we 

probably wouldn't have to worry about it. But if it was 

for months at a time that the water was flowing from 

Hadnot Point to Holcomb Boulevard, then we need to know 

that. I mean, I don't -- 

DR. JOHNSON: I understand. Okay. Question 6: An 

innovative approach for fire-flow testing was employed at 

Camp Lejeune, using continuous recording pressure monitors 

simultaneously at several fire hydrants while different 

combinations of hydrants were flowed. Is this approach 

technically sound and beneficial? Ben. 

MR. HARDING: It seems sound to me. It's better than 

anything I've seen. So Tom's gone into a moment here. 

But it's a really interesting approach, and it seemed to 

work real well. 

DR. POMMERENK: We've done a similar approach at a 

different military base where we had continuous pressure 

recorders, and it works very well. And I'm glad to see 

that employed in this study as well. 

MR. HARDING: I would make this point, that in terms 

of calibrating the model you do need to have good data on 

the tank elevations. And so if you've had doubt about the 

SCADA system, those ought to be resolved because that's 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
125 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the other boundary condition you need. 

DR. CLARK: Did you skip the question on: Should 

ATSDR consider using probabilistic analyses deliberately, 

or was that -- 

MR. MASLIA: I think -- I mean, we answered that. I 

don't have an extra copy of the sheet I handed out, but is 

that grayed out? 

DR. JOHNSON: Oh, that was my oversight, to be 

blatantly honest with you. And you can write that off to 

early dementia. And we will return to that. I thank you 

for making that observation. Eric, do you have a comment? 

DR. LABOLLE: No. It was the same comment about the 

earlier question. 

DR. JOHNSON: Well, with my apologies, let us return 

then to that previous question: Should ATSDR consider 

using probabilistic analyses to assess the variability and 

uncertainty of, one, water distribution-system model 

parameters; two, nodal demands; and three, system 

operations? If so, what specific methodologies would the 

panel suggest or recommend? 

MR. HARDING: Well, the answer in my mind is, to the 

general question of using probabilistic analysis is, yes. 

We had significant discussions about what needs to be 

represented here in a simulation. 

And -- but what does get represented should be 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
126 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

represented as uncertain variables in a probabilistic 

framework, and the most commonly accepted and readily 

accessible technique for that is Monte Carlo simulation of 

one sort or another. 

So I think that ATSDR should not just consider using 

probabilistic analysis. They should do that, and they 

should frame the resulting intakes -- what I call intakes, 

body intakes, of these materials in an empirical or 

calculated set of credibility ranges based -- you know, 

with probabilities assigned to them. That's my view. 

DR. CLARK: I think that it would be great if they 

can do that; yes. One technique that they might look at 

is the PRP approach that Steve Buchberger is using at the 

University of Cincinnati for individual household use and 

-- which I think fits your -- within the framework that 

you're talking about. 

MR. MASLIA: Bob, would that not then require us to 

have flow information? 

DR. CLARK: You'd have to make some estimates about 

individual household use; right. But you could aggregate 

those into demands or metered demands. 

MR. MASLIA: Well, I'm saying, but we would need some 

metered information then. 

DR. CLARK: If you had your -- going back to the idea 

that you have the metered district approach. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
127 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MASLIA: Well, that's the question because at 

least -- I may be jumping the gun, Dr. Johnson, as to what 

I'm hearing. But I'll go ahead and take another 

opportunity. What I'm hearing is that we should not 

proceed any further with the flow meters because of 

issues. Tom -- 

DR. CLARK: I think you should, so... 

MR. MASLIA: Oh, okay. That's what -- I want to make 

sure we get that out and get a clarification on that. 

Could we have the panel address that issue? Just to give 

you the status, they're in the ground. Okay. They're 

operating. They're not calibrated, so... 

DR. WALSKI: Well, I think the real source of 

uncertainty though is the well data. So if I was going to 

do a Monte Carlo simulation of this, I would not use 

demands of the houses as my undetermined variable or my 

C-factors at my variables that I would do statistics on. 

I would use which wells are firing at which time. 

That's the one that I would treat as the stochastic 

variable because that's the one that's going to have the 

greatest impact on it is which well. 

So you say, "Okay. We roll the dice, and this is the 

pattern of wells we're going operate, and we roll the dice 

again and see this pattern." Because I think that's the 

one that's going to cause the greatest variability in the 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
128 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

results. We do have some data from the installationrestoration reports and things like that as to well 

concentrations. 

You know, which wells were on at which time are going 

to make the real issue and not which house showered at 

this time versus which house flushed their toilet at that 

time. It's not going to be what's going to drive TCE. 

DR. UBER: I think that this question is connected, 

in an obvious way, to all of the other ones, as far as I 

can tell, that we've talked about. The only other comment 

that I'd have to add is I would be -- I would be all for 

doing things probabilistically, assuming that they can be 

framed in a way that ends up being meaningful. 

And my only problem with this is that I think it's 

basically tantamount to rolling back stochastic hydrology 

before it existed and just saying, "Should we invent this 

over the next two years?" 

And I don't -- I don't think that you're starting 

from ground zero. I think you have things like, you know, 

Buchberger's PRP model and stuff like that. But you have 

really no -- you have no existing theory of any weight to 

-- with which to say roughnesses are spatially correlated 

or demands are -- how -- what their spatial, temporal 

distribution looks like. And so I think that, you know, 

you could get in trouble there by trying to do that. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
129 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. LABOLLE: My experience has been that the 

geologic uncertainty in the context of the Monte Carlo is 

going to swamp out everything else. And that simply just 

translates directly into the arrival curves at these 

wells, which the sources to these systems. And as I've 

mentioned several times, you know, can you tolerate a 

couple of orders of magnitude, variability due to 

uncertainty in those curves? 

Because when you start Monte Carlo-ing geologic 

uncertainty, that may be what you find out is the outcome. 

And so in my experience, though, it's going to swamp out 

other things. That may or may not be the case if you're 

actually seeing the exposed and unexposed population 

change based on roughness or something -- something of 

that sort, depending upon where these interconnections 

occur. 

DR. BOVE: But -- see how I can phrase this. The 

variability you're talking about, it's not a daily 

variability. It's not a weekly variability. It's a much 

larger time frame. 

DR. LABOLLE: Well, we have -- you have two things: 

variability and uncertainty. The variability in the 

geology, it's spatial variability; and the geometry, the 

hydraulic conductivities -- however you want to frame the 

geologic characterization. But it's heterogeneity 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
130 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

essentially. 

Then we have uncertainty. What is that? All you 

have are samples at a few points in space out there. And 

in particular, this TT-26 at Tarawa Terrace, which appears 

to be the main source of contamination potentially, 

although that's uncertain too at this point. And the 

source location are two points which have been 

characterized somewhat, I guess, as the source by 

monitoring well data in Tarawa Terrace by some log there. 

But there's, for the most part, subsurface is not 

sampled. And so all that -- all that material that fills 

in these points, there's uncertainty there. And it's not 

layer cake, as the models represented. At least, it's not 

likely to be. Those are simplifications made for modeling 

purposes, and that -- the uncertainty in that, if one were 

to pursue modeling that, one would find, likely find, that 

that uncertainty would translate to a great deal of 

uncertainty in the arrival curves, and modeling that 

uncertainty is a different level of modeling than what's 

been proposed thus far, than what I've heard. It's not 

simply twisting the parameters in the existing model. 

It could be. I mean, you could approach it that way, 

but there would also have to be a great deal of spatial 

refinement in the vertical, potentially in the horizontal, 

and then the way in which we change those parameters. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
131 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

We'd have to have some kind of geologic and context and 

probabilistic context related to the geology and its 

characterization. 

MR. HARDING: I would like to really agree and 

support the opinions of both Eric and Tom, that the 

groundwater uncertainty is going to swamp everything else. 

And then it's the well operation that determines the 

introduction of the contaminants into the system. So it 

seems to me these are the two most important factors and 

that the -- we have to deal with the issue of 

interconnection and whether you're going to address that, 

but even so, those are the two most important things. And 

those should -- and they're really uncertain, so they need 

to be expressed in probabilistic terms. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Are there any other comments on 

this? Let's finish with Question 7. Is it feasible or 

necessary for ATSDR to simulate the complete 18-year 

historical period on a continuous basis? And in red, pink 

here, Ben, for your -- will monthly -- 

MR. HARDING: I can see it. 

DR. JOHNSON: Just was trying to be helpful. So how 

do we answer that? Tom. 

DR. WALSKI: You don't need distribution modeling on 

a continuous basis. I mean, it's nice if you want to do 

it, but I just don't see it as being that important 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
132 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

because essentially we don't have a good way to determine 

which wells are operating at which times. So, you know, 

why beat the -- this dislinear to death just because we 

have nice models that'll solve it? 

DR. CLARK: I agree with you, Tom (laughter). 

DR. UBER: Our colleagues agree. 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: Even monthly simulations are 

going to be tough, but I suspect that's what -- 

DR. LABOLLE: I would like to add something since I 

had presented premeeting comments and suggested maybe 

averaging exposure over the month would require continuous 

modeling because that was my experience in another 

modeling effort in which I was involved. But in that 

modeling effort, we had multiple entries into the 

distribution system, and at the time, I was thinking along 

those lines. But this system with the single point of 

entry during much of the time periods of interest here, I 

don't think it's going to get you much. 

MR. HARDING: I want to say that I think the ATSDR 

should try to calculate the potential exposures on a 

continuous time-series basis, whatever that time step is. 

Now, as I've probably said a hundred times here, I don't 

believe that in almost every case that requires water 

distribution fate and transport modeling, but I think you 

should try to reconstruct to your best estimate, 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
133 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

basically, a set of probability, just empirical 

probability distributions, for the breakthrough curves for 

the model and for the contaminants that enter the system 

so that you have a time series that you can then correlate 

to the activities of the individuals. But that probably 

doesn't require what we term water-distribution modeling. 

It does require calculations that are really modeling, but 

it isn't using a modeling code, continuously or otherwise. 

DR. LABOLLE: I don't recommend monthly time stepping 

in a fate and transport model for the groundwater as an 

input to your system. I think that's going to end up 

being a much smaller time scale than the information 

that's available, simply due to constraints and the way in 

which these models are run to get a numerically valid 

result. And that's going to give you something, curves, 

out of these models that are on a temporal scale, which is 

much finer than a -- it's probably going to be fractions 

of day, and that's the kind of output you're going to see 

from there. 

DR. JOHNSON: This completes these questions. 

Morris, Frank, anything else you'd like to put before the 

panel in the spirit of this kind of specific questioning? 

MR. MASLIA: I'm still unclear on the flow-meter 

issue. It's a critical issue for the agency and the 

Marine Corps, and it may be that the panel has differences 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
134 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

of opinion, which is fine. But I think for the record we 

really need -- if there's any way -- 

DR. JOHNSON: You want some clarity as -- 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. 

DR. JOHNSON: -- to position. 

MR. MASLIA: Position; yes. 

DR. JOHNSON: Tom, do you want to start? 

DR. WALSKI: Well, if you've installed them already, 

I would try and get them calibrated and see what I could 

learn from them. But I wouldn't -- the ultimate impact of 

that on the final bottom line of the study is going to be 

really small. It's not -- you know, the fact is though 

that, you know, it doesn't hurt to know that. But I 

wouldn't really spend a huge amount of resources on it. 

You know, try to get them calibrated because, looking at 

what Peter just showed me, the threshold on those things 

is like 2.2 feet per second. And most of the time, you're 

below 2.2 feet per second, so it's questionable whether 

you're going to get good data out of those things. 

DR. JOHNSON: So why do it? 

DR. WALSKI: Well, it's in there, so try it. 

DR. JOHNSON: No. That's not a reason. Tom, that's 

not a reason. Why do it if it's not going to give you 

anything of use? 

DR. CLARK: I think it -- I'm a little more 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
135 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

optimistic than Tom in terms of what data you're going to 

get out of it. I think that plus the flow balancing of 

the tanks using SCADA data would probably give you a 

pretty good estimate as to what the demands are in those 

zones. 

DR. JOHNSON: Peter, yes or no? 

DR. POMMERENK: Well, I'm not quite sure whether, you 

know, any background noise, electrical noise, at those low 

flows will really be able to help us detect significant 

flows in those oversized mains; that somebody indicated 

earlier they're oversized for five of those. So, yeah, 

the question is: Are we going to get any useful data out 

of it? So if we have to open hydrants to perform the 

calibration, that is -- it's fine, okay to calibrate it, 

but in reality, this is not the flow that we usually see. 

So my expectation is that there may be no useful data 

coming out of that. 

DR. JOHNSON: David, do you want to weigh in on this 

issue? 

DR. DOUGHERTY: No (laughter). 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. That's a very fair response. 

Lenny. 

DR. SINGH: I think it may be -- 

DR. JOHNSON: Please. 

DR. SINGH: -- it may be opportunity to ask Morris as 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
136 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to his experience so far with regard to metering the flow. 

MR. MASLIA: The -- it goes back -- one of -- the 

concept of installing a flow-measuring device goes back 

because of the inconsistency in the SCADA data originally 

and trying to get at two things: getting a total flow, 

which you can sum up from the different locations; and at 

the same time, while you're getting a total flow, you can 

also do the area, area-type analysis. 

One of the issues we ran into is that we've got a 

report, the conservation study, which admittedly is taken 

from a water-budget standpoint -- but showed approximately 

a 30 percent difference in water going in and coming out. 

Of course, you can just allocate that. You know, one 

method is just distribute that equally every place. That 

may or may not be accurate. 

So that was another factor, in that we've got a 

documented approach that summed up water use and was plus 

or minus 30 percent. From that standpoint -- that was not 

acceptable from an epidemiologic standpoint. So those two 

factors taken in combination led us to suggest that by 

installing flow meters we could accomplish two things at 

one time. 

We would have -- we would be able to quantify by 

summing up the various flow meters production versus flow, 

and then really establish is that 30 percent difference 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
137 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

reality, or was that just a method or a consequence of the 

method that was used, the inaccuracy in that first method? 

And at the second time -- at the second point also be able 

to, at that point in time, determine areas, specifically 

family-housing areas, due to the absence of individual 

house meters. 

At this point in time, as I said, the meters are in. 

The modeling that we've done to date -- and I'm saying 

this so you can understand because the comments about the 

low flow are an issue. We had -- when we did the test 

last May at Hadnot Point, we had -- I won't say 

significantly -- we had larger, larger flows. And that 

model to date, the present day, is probably the best of 

all three. 

The subsequent models for Holcomb Boulevard and 

Tarawa Terrace, we've attempted to do the calibration 

based on flow information in levels this fall and winter. 

And that's, of course, when we've been trying to install 

or calibrate these meters during a period, which 

admittedly is a -- even based historically is extremely 

low, low-demand conditions. 

Our attempt or our plan was to have them calibrated 

in sufficient time so for the peak-demand season, then you 

would have the higher flows. We're still aiming for that, 

and that's why I needed some feedback from the panel is 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
138 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that all our attempts to date have been trying to 

calibrate them under exceedingly low-demand conditions. 

DR. POMMERENK: One question: Have -- based on your 

preliminary data collection, can you tell anything about 

the accuracy of those meters, whatever you've measured so 

far? Or have you collected any data and compared it with 

-- you know, Claudia showed us that graph earlier about 

one location. Could you compare, I mean, instantaneous 

flow rates and maybe cumulative flow rates? 

MR. MASLIA: Well, that's why we prepared the -- 

DR. POMMERENK: Okay. That was passed on. 

MR. MASLIA: Yeah, it was passed on. But the concept 

behind that -- so that when we're in the field, we 

prepared a minimum, a maximum, and an average, then we 

would be able to see immediately -- we have not had that 

before -- you know, if the flow meters were somewhere in 

between those range of flows. We'd be okay. We'd go 

ahead with the calibration. 

On one meter, as it turned out -- this was on the 

24-inch pipe -- obviously, there's no flow. It turns out 

to be a by-pass or a pipe to balance some tanks. And of 

course, we're not -- you know, we're pulling the meter and 

not using the meter there. As it turned out, that was not 

a useful location. 

But we do have some preliminary information based on 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
139 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the model simulation, which we're hoping would guide the 

calibration process. However, what we -- what we have 

seen is if you assume the meters have been calibrated and 

we come up for QAQC, when we do flow a hydrant, you know, 

increase the flow from up to, you know, 600, 800 gallons a 

minute, there's a substantial difference in what the 

meter's recording and what we're flowing. 

What they have done for the calibration process, just 

so everyone's clear, is they go down into the manhole and 

strap an ultrasonic, a trans, which is plus or minus 1 

percent. And then you read the Dynasonic, which is 

supposed to be plus or minus 2 percent, so we figure, you 

know, they should be within a few gallons per minute of 

each other, and they're not. 

DR. JOHNSON: Does anyone else wish to comment? 

Peter. 

DR. POMMERENK: Just one more question: You mentioned 

the 30 percent difference between a water-conservation 

study results and water-production records. 

MR. MASLIA: That is -- that is correct. And that's 

not a critique of the study. I'm just giving you -- 

DR. POMMERENK: No. I'm just wondering: What do you 

attribute these 30 percent discrepancy to? Is that -- is 

that mis -- over- or underestimating household demands or 

commercial demands, or is that actually just an estimation 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
140 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

issue so you're not assuming it's leakage, or -- 

MR. MASLIA: Well, no; no. I'm not assuming it's 

leakage. It's both the -- what I attribute it to is that 

methodology is a water budget, adding up, you know, 

lavatory, sinks, showers, and things of that nature and 

coming up that way. I don't believe -- it may be a small 

amount of leakage, but I don't have any knowledge on that 

so I attribute part of it, at least, to the -- to that 

methodology. 

I don't know if that's a standard, acceptable amount 

of difference or not. And in the other -- and so what we 

wanted to, again, determine with the flow meters is we've 

got on one hand the total production or total delivered 

water at the plant. Okay? So that's what -- and that was 

our only other number. So even in the models that we have 

right now -- for example, Hadnot Point or whatever, you've 

still got this if you use the water-conservation study. 

That's how we spatially distributed building use and 

all that type of use per building and all that. And we've 

got a 30 percent difference. We can evenly distribute it 

or not, and that's another -- again, what we were hoping 

to obtain with the flow-meter information is a more 

quantifiable estimate or even areas where you have better 

estimates than other areas. 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes, Peter. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
141 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. POMMERENK: I'll let Tom go ahead for a while. 

DR. WALSKI: Well, first of all, I'm assuming that 

when you measure the discrepancy the production was higher 

than the estimated consumption; right? Your estimate was 

production was up here and what the method says was down 

here; right? 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. 

DR. WALSKI: So it was higher. The production was 

higher. So, yeah, it is likely that there is leakage to 

that extent. And also, they're thinking about these 

methodologies that you're using that are based on typical, 

average customers. And one thing that you learn is that 

you never have a typical, average system. So that type of 

discrepancy is not, you know, anything that would alarm 

me. 

You know, they say, "30 percent. My God. That's a 

lot." But no. It's not really. It's not that bad. 

DR. JOHNSON: Peter. 

DR. POMMERENK: Yeah; just the other issue. You 

mentioned you were waiting for higher demands during the 

summer for doing additional validation of the metering 

data or -- 

MR. MASLIA: What we were -- what we -- and we're 

still anticipating to cal -- we're trying to calibrate the 

meters during this period -- winter, early winter, fall, 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
142 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

winter -- in anticipation of collecting about six months 

of metering data to be able to capture the high-demand 

period. 

DR. POMMERENK: But have you -- has your review of 

past production data indicated that there is substantial 

-- a substantially higher demand during the summer months? 

MR. MASLIA: Yes; yes. The USGS reports show that. 

DR. POMMERENK: Okay. I'm just asking the question. 

We have recently completed a related study, and my 

recollection -- and I may be wrong -- we didn't really see 

a pronounced summer. I'm willing to share that data with 

you, so... 

MR. FAYE: It's a difference of -- it's how you 

define "substantial." 

DR. POMMERENK: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: But I'm looking -- I have the reports with 

me; unfortunately, not exactly here in the room. But off 

the top of my head, I'm looking at -- I'm thinking of 

perhaps a 20, maybe 25 percent difference between, say, a 

demand from January through March versus, say, June 

through September. 

DR. POMMERENK: Okay. I would think substantial is 

if you're maxed is a factor of two or three over the 

average annual demand, daily demand. So you don't quite 

see -- 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
143 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. FAYE: No. 

DR. POMMERENK: -- those. 

MR. FAYE: No. 

DR. POMMERENK: Okay. With respect to the flow 

metering, obviously, the increases in flow during the 

summer are not expected to increase that much; right? 

MR. FAYE: Maybe I can invent a different way of 

saying it, but the average daily demand, for example, 

during the period -- and this is basewide; basewide, not 

selective to Holcomb Boulevard or Tarawa Terrace or 

whatever. The average daily demand during July and August 

would perhaps be 25 percent higher, greater, more than, 

the average daily demand during January through February 

-- January through March. Okay? 

DR. POMMERENK: Thanks. 

DR. JOHNSON: In summary then, is it fair to say that 

there -- that some panelists have some concerns about the 

flow-meter work and would suggest, given limited 

resources, particularly personnel, that ATSDR look at this 

in terms of, in effect, what the cost/benefit is? Is this 

data worth what it's going to cost you to get? Is that a 

fair statement? Should it be changed? Morris is looking, 

I think, for a rather clear statement from the panel. 

DR. CLARK: Well, given where you are in terms of 

actually installing the meters, how much more effort would 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
144 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

it take to actually do the next step? 

MR. MASLIA: On our part, probably a couple of weeks 

with a couple of people. That's basically the time to 

calibrate the meters. And then, of course, on the Camp 

Lejeune staff, because they assist us in collecting the 

data, downloading the data -- it's going around to 16 

meters once a month. They have the capability of storing 

more but, say, once a month downloading the data. 

So manpower-wise or labor-wise, I don't think it's -- 

it's the calibration process that's intensive, and it only 

seems more so intensive because of the past attempts that, 

obviously, we have made and have not been successful. But 

now that we've got sort of a step-by-step how-to manual 

and some estimates of what we expect to see the flows to 

be based on our model simulation, we're hoping that it 

will go much -- you know, on schedule. So basically, 

you're talking about a two-week effort with a couple of 

people from ATSDR. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Last comment from Tom. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. I've got more comments. This is 

my last (laughter). 

DR. JOHNSON: It's the last one on this issue. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. The -- to put this thing in 

perspective, the calibration data is the calibration of 

water -- calibrated water-distribution model, which we 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
145 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

aren't sure we're going to need. So first of all, we have 

that issue to get over. 

But, in the meantime, since we have made this 

investment, I think it's worth getting like a month's 

worth of data and just looking at it and seeing what does 

a month's worth of data say. And then we can decide if 

it's worth doing several months; just for the background 

information. It may be good for the utilities' people 

just to have this data to help them manage this system 

even if you don't use if for calibration. 

So I'd say, you know, try it for a month. There's 

going to be some places where you have shuttling between 

the tanks where the velocities are going to be high, and 

you are going to get good information. There are going to 

be some dead-end areas where you're going to be below the 

threshold half the time or so, and it's not going to be 

very useful information. 

But get a month's worth of data, and if it looks good 

and the people from the utility think it's worth 

collecting, then keep on collecting it. And then if you 

do have to use it to -- if you decide to do a more 

detailed model or a more detailed calibration, you'll have 

it. So that's the way I would put it in perspective. 

MR. MASLIA: One point, Dr. Johnson. Actually, it's 

an answer to Peter that came to mind with respect to 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
146 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

variation in production or flows. When we were doing our 

testing in May of 2004 at Hadnot Point, we were seeing on 

the average of about 2100 gallons per minute being 

produced out of that plant during the week of our test, 

more or less. 

When we came back in August, although we were not 

testing Hadnot Point, I just took the opportunity to go 

over to the chart, and it was up at 3,000 gallons per 

minute, so... 

DR. POMMERENK: Okay. 

DR. JOHNSON: Any more? Tom, anything else on this? 

DR. WALSKI: Mm-mm. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. The panel, I think, has 

done an extraordinarily excellent job of responding to 

these questions and issues as well as those yesterday. 

The work that remains for the panel is to respond to the 

four specific charges, and we've talked about almost all 

of them. And so that's the work that remains. 

I foresee us being able to finish by around 1:30 and 

such. That means that a public comment period needs to be 

moved up, and I'd like to offer the opportunity now for 

any comments from the public. Yes, Ben. 

MR. HARDING: Can I just ask one -- 

DR. JOHNSON: Please; of course. 

MR. HARDING: -- question before we do that? 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
147 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes. 

MR. HARDING: We have this amended question, issues, 

and discussions page, which has explicitly marked out 

certain bullets. And then on the original sheet, there's 

issues. On page 3, there was integration of groundwater 

and water-distribution systems. Did we deal with that 

yesterday? Was that -- or has that been implicitly X'd 

out? 

DR. POMMERENK: X'd out. 

MR. HARDING: X'd out. Okay. It just -- 

MR. MASLIA: That was my -- that's why I didn't bring 

it up. I didn't X it out, but, based on the discussion 

that we've gone today, that becomes a moot point, at least 

from my interpretation. 

MR. HARDING: Okay. That was what I thought, but I 

just wanted to make sure. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Comments from the public. Mr. 

Ensminger. 

COURT REPORTER: I need to go down. 

DR. JOHNSON: Oh, excuse me. Let's take about a 

 ten-minute break. 

COURT REPORTER: All I need is two minutes, if you 

just want to continue. 

DR. JOHNSON: No. I think the panel needs to have a 

break. Let's break until lunch arrives. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
148 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(Whereupon, a recess of approximately 28 minutes was 

taken.) 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. The floor is open for comments 

from the public. Mr. Ensminger. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Not so much comments. I had a few 

questions on some of the things that were brought up 

during the discussion. It was brought up by one of the 

members from the Camp Lejeune delegation that North 

Carolina State requires separate permits for multiple 

water systems, and I have a question is: How long has that 

been -- requirement been in place? 

MR. ASHTON: I'm not -- 

MR. ENSMINGER: Whenever you open and close a valve? 

How long has that requirement been in place? 

MR. ASHTON: I'm not sure how long, but I can try to 

find that out there and also, you know, the -- I can 

certainly find when we got those permits for the water 

systems as well. 

MR. ENSMINGER: And another thing about the Holcomb 

Boulevard water system was that it seems that there were a 

limited number of wells initially assigned to that watertreatment plant. Were the wells that were assigned to 

Holcomb Boulevard initially able to keep up with the 

demand for the area that it serviced? 

And the question of on the flow meters, there seemed 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
149 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to be a lot of dissension about that because of the 

oversized pipes. Would the installation of choke points 

-- somebody brought that up -- improve the accuracy and 

the velocity? I know it would increase the velocity of 

the water going through them. Would it increase the 

accuracy of the data? I mean, you're talking about 16 

flow meters. I don't know if all 16 are on 12-inch 

oversized lines. 

DR. JOHNSON: Tom or Peter or both? 

DR. WALSKI: Well, to increase the accuracy, whether 

or not we need it is still the question. So that's why 

I'd say: Don't spend this money until we're sure we need 

that extra quality of data would be the way that I would 

leave it. 

DR. JOHNSON: Peter? 

DR. POMMERENK: I agree. 

MR. ENSMINGER: And on the Hadnot Point water system, 

the questions of historical data as far as contamination 

of certain wells, the installation-restoration program has 

the accurate data now for each well that was contaminated 

in the Hadnot Point system. They have the actual 

contaminants that were in those systems or in those wells, 

and they know what the sources were. So as far as 

reconstructing, you know, and doing the historical, there 

would be some work involved in it, but that data is 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
150 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

available. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. As I commented before lunch, I 

think we can certainly be through by 1:30. Some meetings 

go quicker than anticipated. I have been in many meetings 

where it's gone the other way and you reach 2:30 on the 

third day and you realize you're not done. And so this is 

quite to the contrary. And the preplanning done by ATSDR 

was really very, very well done, and presenting the issues 

and questions to the panel has helped us go through some 

of these tough matters that the ATSDR is going to have to 

deal with after we leave. 

So my goal is to have us out of here around 1:30 or 

so. I propose to provide a formal response to Questions 3 

and 4 in the charge to the panel. I discussed with Mr. 

Maslia before lunch if all four were still relevant, and 

he indicated that we had really done a good job discussing 

questions or Charges 1 and 2. But he asked that we do 

provide a formal response to Charges 3 and 4. Charge 3 is 

now on the screen, and so that spares me having to read it 

to you now. How does the panel wish to react to this 

third charge? 

DR. CLARK: One area that it seems to me that ATSDR 

might consider is looking at the degradation by-products 

of some of these oxidated chemicals, and I think there's a 

potential there that there might be things like vinyl 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
151 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

chloride in the system, which I think would bias their 

results. And I hadn't gotten a sense of how much of that 

has actually been done. 

DR. SINGH: Number 2 shows that we -- ATSDR already 

has started with their groundwater modeling. One portends 

to consent to the analysis, and the other one relates to 

the accounting for the variability recharge. I think 

those are the two issues that ATSDR should take into 

consideration. 

DR. JOHNSON: Other advice on this charge? 

DR. KONIKOW: Well, the groundwater modeling that we 

discussed -- and I think that's been focused on the Tarawa 

Terrace area. And I guess maybe we should talk for a 

minute about the need for looking at and modeling the 

groundwater flow and contamination in the Hadnot Point 

area or the Holcomb Boulevard area. Or do we just accept 

that Hadnot Point wells are contaminated over the whole 

time? 

DR. LABOLLE: In addition, Lenny, you had mentioned 

previously -- and I concur with the need to at least 

demonstrate that contaminants arrive to TT-26 or 

demonstrate that they may not, depending on the outcome of 

the models within this for the 14-year time frame, for 

example, and to the extent that the study period's going 

to be pushed back further. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
152 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

In addition, somebody mentioned other periods of time 

we might be looking at the cancer risk. You may want to 

actually have a model that's useful for protecting the 

uncertainty in the arrival curve itself. I'm not sure if 

you're planning on going back before '68 at Tarawa 

Terrace. 

MR. FAYE: Our intention has always been -- largely 

due to modeling considerations as well as others, but our 

intention has always been to begin the groundwater flow 

simulations at Tarawa Terrace with the beginning of 

operations of the WTP and the well fields, which would be 

like 1952, '53, and then simulate that forward to '94, 

which is the end of our relevant water-level record. 

DR. LABOLLE: But the question would be the period of 

time from '54 through '68. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. To transport -- very definitely. 

We would do the fate and transport simulations as well for 

that period of time. 

DR. LABOLLE: Well, but are they going to use it in 

the epi study? 

MR. FAYE: That, I don't know. But I would just feel 

comfortable doing that. If we don't, there's always going 

to be a question there: Did the contaminants arrive at the 

wells in one month, six months, five years, or whatever? 

And I think that's an important consideration. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
153 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. LABOLLE: I'm not suggesting that it not be done. 

Actually, I'm suggesting that the degree of effort put 

into this will depend upon whether or not the epi studies 

are in the future pushed back to earlier dates, 

I think. 

MR. FAYE: That, I don't know. But our -- as far as 

the modeling is concerned, I can speak to that, and our 

plans from Day 1 have been to provide those simulations 

from the beginning of the WTP operation and the well-field 

operation, which would be, as I said, 1952 or '53. 

DR. KONIKOW: For all three areas? 

MR. FAYE: Just for the Tarawa Terrace. Lenny, as we 

said yesterday, we're using the Tarawa Terrace because it 

is a "simpler system." But it is a little simpler. So 

that's our -- what would you say? That's our prototype 

effort, and if we think we're successful there, then we 

can advance ourselves to -- if necessary. 

I mean, if the epi -- epidemiological demands require 

that, then we can advance to a more complex system where 

we have this confidence that we've built on and attempt 

that, which would be Hadnot Point. 

DR. KONIKOW: So is the default option then in the 

epidemiological study to assume that the Hadnot Point 

system was contaminated over the whole period of time? 

MR. FAYE: I don't know what their default position 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
154 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

would be. But based on the data that I've seen and how 

the wells are positioned with respect to obvious sources 

of contamination and whatever, yeah, I would say that 

there -- whoever said here today that when the particular 

well was actually opened up and began to be used, it was 

probably contaminated at that time. I would say that 

that's an accurate statement with respect to perhaps a 

number of wells, supply wells, at Hadnot Point. 

And also through time -- I mean, the wells may have 

been -- in 1941 when the wells were constructed, there 

probably was no problem. And then over the years, as the 

facility grew and different things were done land-usewise, why, yeah, they probably became contaminated. 

MR. MASLIA: Two issues. If we go into Tarawa 

Terrace, from a groundwater fate and transport standpoint, 

if we don't start at predevelopment, then we have some 

real issues to address with antecedent conditions, and 

then we're going to have to do some more uncertainty 

modeling as to the effect of not knowing the antecedent 

conditions, which I think adds to our effort and, I think, 

overpowers the amount of additional effort, just by 

starting from before the -- from predevelopment and 

running them out. My understanding is we can also -- we 

can vary the step size in MODFLOW, can we not? 

MR. FAYE: Oh, yes. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
155 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. So we could use larger -- if we 

see there's no contamination, you know, for a certain 

number of years in the beginning after some trial runs, we 

can make those larger, larger step size, and then when we 

think it is down to a much smaller -- as you said 15 day 

or less. 

I've actually used even smaller time steps for that 

previously and do that. And that would be, at least 

initially, my approach is not to complicate our analyses 

even more with trying to guess antecedent conditions but 

let the model do the work; in other words, circuitous 

development. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. At that -- yeah, the issue then 

very rapidly moves from a code-capability issue to a 

number-crunching issue, so that's where you're at there. 

DR. LABOLLE: I wouldn't bother corseting the time 

study, in my opinion, simply because, I mean, you're 

probably not going to be constrained by the time it takes 

to run this model. And what that would then do is lead to 

possible numerical errors and a plume that doesn't look 

like the plume that the model was intended to solve for. 

So you might as well just leave them at the required 

resolution to obtain a numerically valid solution. I'd be 

more concerned about the assumptions in the model itself 

than those kinds of issues and the underlying geologic 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
156 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

characterization, which it looks like, you know, you've 

done a good job approaching that. 

But the -- it's the way in which one deals with the 

uncertainty in there. And if I were to make any 

recommendation, I would recommend an approach to dealing 

with geologic uncertainty be incorporated into the 

analysis so that one can examine the uncertainty in the 

geology and its effect on arrival, potential arrival, to 

these various wells in the vicinity of this ABC's Cleaner 

there and of the -- some of the wells that are reported -- 

reportedly clean throughout the periods of interest may 

have actually seen contamination because they simply 

weren't sampled continuously. 

MR. FAYE: Right. They're -- 

DR. LABOLLE: And others that -- I'm sorry. Excuse 

me. 

Others, you know, that have seen contamination, we 

don't know when the contamination arrived. And to the 

extent that maybe all of these are swamped out by 

concentrations of TT-26 and the models begin to show that, 

maybe you can lay these issues aside because the mixing 

that appears to have been in this system. All wells are 

mixing. 

You may not need to pursue, you know, the groundwater 

modeling past that point in terms of determining what 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
157 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

arrived at these other wells. But there seems to be 

another issue -- and I think that you and I discussed 

during the break -- where if TT-26 is turned off and these 

other wells have taken over -- 

MR. FAYE: Right. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- and yet there may not be sampling at 

these wells to assess whether there was contamination 

arriving to them, and some of them are quite close to 

TT-26 and appear to be very capable of intercepting the 

plume. 

MR. FAYE: That is a real issue; absolutely. 

DR. LABOLLE: And so then you're left with modeling 

to resolve that. 

MR. FAYE: That's right. 

DR. LABOLLE: And once again -- I don't mean to 

belabor the point -- but I think it's geologic uncertainly 

that is going to swamp out a lot of other uncertainties in 

all of these modeling efforts of the water-distribution 

system. And that's going to be one of the main players. 

That and the source, as David will know. 

MR. MASLIA: The other question or issue with respect 

to the Hadnot Point -- as Bob said, we're using Tarawa 

Terrace first. But if we assume or can assume that at 

least some of the wells were sunk into an aquifer upon 

production that was already contaminated, does that then 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
158 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

not bring the problem in trying to simplify matters to a 

materials mass balance where if we knew the cycling on and 

off of wells we could calculate the concentration of the 

mixture on there? And that might then alleviate also any 

detailed numerical modeling of the Hadnot Point area with 

the large and nonpoint specific sources. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Let's then turn to Charge No. 4. 

And as that comes up on the screen, let me ask kind of a 

housekeeping detail of Mr. Maslia. Are arrangements being 

made for transportation to the airport? I mean... 

MR. MASLIA: My understanding is some -- some people 

have arranged with the hotel shuttle, and all that needs 

to be done is to call the hotel shuttle when they are 

ready to board that hotel shuttle. Ann Walker or Joann 

can do that once we tell them we're -- we're finished. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. 

MR. MASLIA: If people want -- what? 

DR. WALSKI: The shuttle doesn't bring us to the 

airport, does it? 

UNIDENTIFIED PANELIST: There is a shuttle. 

MR. MASLIA: There is a shuttle. 

DR. WALSKI: Yeah. But not the -- a different 

shuttle; okay. 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
159 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. CLARK: We're better off sharing taxis. 

DR. WALSKI: Right. I think so; yeah. 

DR. LABOLLE: Along the lines, yeah, I spoke with the 

driver on the way here, and he mentioned that he's trying 

to get us a large van to be able to go to the airport from 

here. And I have to actually have them deliver my bags 

here, and I mentioned that you -- 

DR. SINGH: Yeah. My bags are at the hotel. 

(Whereupon, a conversation ensued off the record.) 

DR. JOHNSON: Charge No. 4 gets under the matter of 

the project schedule. It seems -- it seems, at least to 

the Chair, that there have been a number of rather 

significant suggestions as to perhaps how to reorder the 

work that is anticipated. That makes it a little bit 

unclear, at least in my mind, as to how that works out in 

terms of a project schedule. But I would look forward to 

the comments from the board -- from the panel. 

DR. CLARK: Subject to the comments that have made by 

the panel, it seems to me that the three-year planning 

projected cycle is probably a reasonable one to work 

towards. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Tom had suggested six months. 

DR. WALSKI: Yeah. I can see you're getting to the 

point of beating a dead horse after a while that possibly 

you can do this in about six months unless you find that 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
160 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

missing notebook. You know, the notebook that was on top 

of the refrigerator back in '85 that fell behind the 

refrigerator? And they move it, like, next year, and they 

find this notebook with all the data in it or something. 

Unless you find that kind of a notebook, I don't see three 

years of work giving us a much better answer than we can 

in probably about six months. 

MR. MASLIA: Can I qualify that last charge so that 

everyone's on the same playing field here? 

MR. FAYE: Did you look behind the refrigerator? 

MR. MASLIA: I've looked in at a lot of places, 

including down a manhole. The three years was the total, 

not three additional years. That was three years of 

project length, and we have spent length approximately, 

what, a year or more? Less. So we really are only 

talking about another year and a half or so. 

The initial schedule called to have some preliminary 

fate and transport modeling results with Tarawa Terrace by 

this September, which I believe we're on track for that. 

The question is the additional work, taking the 

suggestions of the panel. I've been trying to simplify 

them on the Hadnot Point area, assessing some preliminary 

flow data from the meters. Would, you know, the three 

years be sufficient? And the one comment I would have, 

given a perfect world where, even if you had to look for 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
161 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

data, in six months would probably be acceptable. 

Being -- doing the kind of detective work that we 

have to do with historic data, I would say shortening -- 

my experience would be on this project that that would 

really be constraining the agency to shorten it any more 

than that, but I'm open to some concrete ideas where -- 

Bob wants to. 

MR. FAYE: I don't know, Tom. Maybe there's some 

pharmaceutical issues related to your comment there, but 

there's just no way in the world (laughter). 

DR. JOHNSON: I don't know what that means. I'll 

speak. If no one else will speak, I'll speak. What are 

the pharmaceutical issues? 

MR. FAYE: There's no way that I can imagine or 

devise or anticipate that we could -- we can fulfill the 

requirements or the suggestions of the panel here with 

respect to the groundwater-flow models and the fate and 

transport simulations and provide a comprehensive, 

complete, technically defensible written product in a 

six-month time period from today. I think that's a very 

unrealistic -- that would be a very unrealistic proposal 

or recommendation. And that's based on 30-some years of 

experience. 

DR. WALSKI: But we have put those -- we've taken 

out, pretty much, most of the distribution modeling, and 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
162 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

we're taking a fairly major chunk of the scope of work 

 out -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah, but the -- 

DR. WALSKI: -- and also cut out most of the modeling 

at Hadnot Point, too, for groundwater. So we've -- 

MR. FAYE: No. Let me clarify that. First of all, 

the -- there -- the -- as the time-line chart, I guess, 

that you've been -- that you have -- the groundwater 

modeling and the distribution modeling were parallel 

efforts. Okay. They weren't -- they weren't a series 

situation: One gets done and then the other. So those 

were all parallel efforts. 

And so, I mean, we planned to converge the completion 

of the two efforts, at a point in time merge the results 

and then go on from there. So I think, as far as that 

parallel effort with respect to the groundwater-modeling 

situation is concerned, we're right on the regional time 

lines. I think we conformed to them very well. 

And as Morris said, the -- we're having -- we're 

planning to have some fate and transport simulation 

results by the end of September, this fall. I think 

that's -- with a bit of work, that's probably doable. 

So -- and realistic. And so then I would anticipate 

finishing that project completely: providing the written 

report, the appropriate peer reviews, et cetera, 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
163 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

et cetera, would still take most of the next year 

after that. So -- 

DR. CLARK: Don't you also have to integrate the 

epidemiological studies -- 

MR. FAYE: Exactly. 

DR. CLARK: So you're talking, what, probably another 

six months to a year? 

MR. FAYE: Absolutely; yeah; yeah. So there's a -- 

even conforming exactly to what I've heard that you folks 

will probably recommend, this three-year time interval 

that we're looking at now with about a year and a half or 

so left is still extremely ambitious. And I don't know. 

I mean, maybe I'm just all wet, but I'd like to hear from 

some of my groundwater colleagues on the panel to tell -- 

to say -- is that -- are you -- have you been smoking 

something, too, Bob (laughter)? 

DR. JOHNSON: Well, there's a clarification. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: What is the terminus of the three 

years? Is it the delivery of the water-modeling results, 

or is it the delivery of the epi results? 

MR. MASLIA: The original schedule was three total 

years to deliver the final historical reconstruction to 

the epi people. 

MR. FAYE: With all of its elements. 

MR. MASLIA: And that included another -- another 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
164 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

peer panel to assess the historical or the final report, 

as we did in Dover Township. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: And the Hadnot and -- 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- Holcomb? 

MR. MASLIA: That's -- that's correct. I will add -- 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Or whatever may be done with Hadnot? 

MR. MASLIA: Right. I will add that Frank and I and 

the epi team had discussed, in fact, with Marine Corps 

headquarters, back in February that it was going to be a 

challenge, an extreme challenge, if we were going to the 

distribution-type stuff to even keep to that three-year 

schedule; an extreme challenge. 

I think based on some recommendations here that 

three-year time frame becomes a more realistic and 

attainable goal. And that's really -- but, again, there 

are a number of, still, work efforts and implementing 

recommendations that you have made even with the 

simplifications. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: My personal feeling is then that -- 

and take the comment with a grain of salt because I really 

haven't seen the detail of the work plan for the other two 

portions of the site in terms of groundwater modeling and 

its impact. But I think the schedule is going to be 

aggressive because of the additional emphasis on the 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
165 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

archaeology, as we've been calling it, and that really 

takes a lot of calendar time. It takes a lot of calendar 

time. 

MR. FAYE: Absolutely. 

DR. KONIKOW: I think, also, if the goal is to do an 

advective/dispersive transport model and that hasn't been 

started yet, that takes time. And that's going to take 

time. 

MR. HARDING: If I might speak specifically about 

this July schedule -- 

MR. MASLIA: This is July of? Is that in the July 

book? 

MR. HARDING: It's revised 13 July. It's the 

current. 

MR. MASLIA: Right. There's probably one in 

September. I don't know if you've gotten it. We've 

revised it somewhat for -- in September. But you can go 

ahead. That's probably within a six- or eight-month 

period. 

MR. HARDING: So if you look at this, the 

geohydrology of groundwater flow, fate and transport work 

appears to end, roughly, the end of this fiscal year, 

which is -- 

MR. MASLIA: Which is September 30th. 

MR. HARDING: Of 2005? 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
166 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MASLIA: Yeah; that's correct. 

MR. HARDING: And then what extends beyond that is 

water-distribution system historical models; actually, 

water-distribution system present-day models. But we, I 

think, suggested that you dramatically compress that -- 

MR. MASLIA: Yes; yes. 

MR. HARDING: -- which, I think, may move that out of 

what appears to be the critical path in this thing. Now, 

I tend to disagree with Tom because I have been swearing 

off all my pharmaceuticals recently. 

But I think more time is necessary to characterize 

the Hadnot Point situation, but I don't really know that 

business. That's the groundwater people's business. But 

I go down here to this methods' development -- and maybe 

this was dealt with yesterday. But there's the GA 

calibration methods, tank mixing, and dynamic linkage of 

groundwater transport and water distribution models, which 

I think can be eliminated. 

And I think that uncertainty methods in groundwater 

flow transport and also in terms of water distribution -- 

or if we want to say integration of exposures and intakes 

and that stuff. Dealing with this in a -- dealing with 

uncertainty and quantifying it can be expanded. But that 

should not affect the overall length of the schedule. But 

those bars down there on all those methods' developments 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
167 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

are really driving the schedule out to the right, and 

those should be essentially, I think, eliminated. 

MR. MASLIA: Those were based, again, when -- were 

based when the schedule was developed, based on our 

previous experience, which they did drive the time frame. 

Although they were -- or at least now we see them as 

complementary, not driving the schedule. 

And from the discussions that we've had here the last 

couple of days what, again, I see driving the schedule are 

two issues: the archaeology or data discovery. That is 

very time-consuming and labor-intensive as well as the 

methods to better understand the uncertainty with respect 

to geologic issues at Tarawa Terrace and going to the 

full-blown fate -- full blown as opposed to the effective 

full fate and dispersive transport models. 

MR. HARDING: Well, I want to emphasize that I think 

that you can make a contribution, both to the 

understanding of this situation but also to the practice, 

if you would, instead of spending your resources on some 

of these methods that relate to linking the models, if you 

would spend more of your effort on quantifying and 

propagating uncertainty through the methods. 

That is going to contribute more to a realistic 

assessment of the epidemiological situation in my view and 

also to the practice here because this is something that 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
168 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

has been an undercurrent in all the discussions. But the 

practical matter of how you do this -- it's not like it's 

unknown, but it's something that could use some effort. 

It would be a good thing for you to shift resources 

to that area, I think. That's my view, and I think that 

helps both your schedule, and, also, it puts your 

resources in a more appropriate area. And I agree with 

you that the resources should be spent, understanding the 

Hadnot Point geohydrology; is that right? Hydrogeology 

transport. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: In my premeeting notes, I had 

compared the July version of the schedule with the version 

of the schedule on a preceding page of the handout. And 

even at that time, last summer, the areas in which the 

greatest slippage had occurred appear to be in collecting 

background information and then the development of the 

historical network information. 

I don't think that we've reduced or accelerated those 

particular tasks in the last two days. And since those 

seemed to have been the ones that already grew before we 

had our two bits to say, they may slip further by as much 

as the six months that Tom talked about; my gut feeling. 

MR. HARDING: When you say "slip," you mean be 

compressed? 

DR. DOUGHERTY: No. I mean they've stretched out. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
169 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

They have been extended when you compare that page to the 

previous page. And what we're hearing is there continues 

to be data discovery that has some significance with 

interconnects, monthly pumping rates that are not yet 

complete. And their significance to the outcomes -- the 

requirements for the outcomes seem significant enough that 

they're going to stretch longer than I thought they would 

when I walked in here yesterday morning. 

DR. JOHNSON: Well, that would seem to conclude our 

response to these Charges No. 3 and 4. My view of what 

remains is to offer, indeed encourage, any kind of dialog 

amongst the panelists on any issue that hasn't been 

addressed to your satisfaction, any matter that you 

brought up in your premeeting comments that has not been 

addressed to your satisfaction, and any points that might 

represent some differences of view within the panel. Put 

those on the table to the extent you wish to discuss them. 

Following that, it's kind of an open-discussion 

opportunity. I'm going to conclude the meeting by asking 

each of you as panelists what you would recommend the 

agency do in regard to what you've heard about the 

groundwater work as well as the water distribution work. 

And I don't know that -- as I said earlier this 

morning, that we want to take the individual advice and 

recommendations and attempt to synthesize them into a 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
170 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

panel product. I don't know that that's in ATSDR's best 

interest because, to some extent, that may tie your hands. 

But I think it is quite fair to ask each of you as 

individuals your comments on what you would recommend for 

the future. So with that on the table, what else do you 

want to deal with as a panel? Open discussion on points 

that haven't been addressed and then closing by asking you 

your individual comments; vis-à-vis, advice; 

recommendations; but not going that third step and 

attempting to compile a panel body of recommendations. 

How does that resonate with you, Morris? You're the 

primary user of these deliberations. 

MR. MASLIA: I actually would prefer not having a 

vote, as you say, but rather having everyone's individual 

opinion or summary of their understanding of what took 

place today. I think that would be much more beneficial 

to us. 

DR. JOHNSON: Is it fair for the panel to say, as a 

body, that we consider this work as extraordinarily 

important for various reasons, certainly in support of an 

epidemiological study, but for other reasons, as 

articulated by Ben, as a study that will advance the 

practice in the field as well? I'm paraphrasing. If I 

misstate this, please correct me. 

But is it fair for this body to go on record, saying 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
171 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

this is pretty important stuff with the epi study and the 

work that involves water protocol and that we would 

encourage ATSDR, given the importance of this work, to 

have resources that are commensurate with that importance? 

Does anyone want to take issue with that? Are you 

comfortable with saying that for the public record as a 

body? Important stuff. Let's get the resources that 

match the importance and urge ATSDR to provide those 

resources. 

DR. SINGH: I think so. I think this is a very 

important study. This integrates hydrology, geology, 

hydraulic engineering, and health sciences. So it's a 

very important study, and it should be encouraged. And 

obviously, we would like the agency to provide 

commensurate resources. 

DR. WALSKI: But we also have to be concerned that 

the marginal benefits exceed the marginal costs. And some 

of the things I'm still not convinced that they are from 

my perspective. But, you know, I'm just one voice. 

DR. JOHNSON: Does anyone else wish to speak to the 

issue of importance of study and commensurate resources? 

DR. CLARK: I think I would support all of your 

characterization of the importance of the -- both as sort 

of the movement for the state of the art, the idea of 

integrating groundwater and surface water modeling 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
172 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

activities and then tying together with epidemiology. 

I think there's also -- I'm sure the study's going to 

be scrutinized carefully by the public. And I guess what 

I'm concerned about is that we appear to do a study that's 

somewhat short of the best that we can do, then we could 

be criticized for that, for not taking it seriously and 

not understanding the public health implications of it 

because they're very serious because there's a lot of 

water systems that have similar kinds of problems. 

And I can see that this could lead to, maybe, a 

further study or a more in-depth study of better 

understanding of what those exposures might be for other 

water consumers. So it seems to me that you've got to 

take it seriously and think of it as scientifically 

defensible. And I say resources are there. Use the 

resources to accomplish the end project -- the end goal of 

the project. 

DR. JOHNSON: Anyone else? Eric? Ben. 

MR. HARDING: I want to build a little bit on what 

Tom's saying because I started -- I think I -- I guess I 

started this ball rolling a little bit. And I want to say 

that just because something is possible doesn't mean it 

should be done. And I think that we have to ask ATSDR to 

really focus on important areas here. And this -- I think 

this is what we're all going to address individually. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
173 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

But I think the study is important in the two ways 

that you mentioned, and if ATSDR puts their emphasis on 

the areas that will contribute to an understanding of this 

situation and improving the practice, I think then it can 

be a very important study. I just want to echo Tom that 

it's important to make that and not take the resources and 

use them in areas that are going to just be generating 

friction. 

So I'll make more specific comments, and I'm sure we 

all will. But I would like to see particularly -- this 

area of dealing with uncertainty quantitatively is an 

important one that's moving more into the practice; out of 

the universities and into practice. And I'd see some more 

effort spent there. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Eric LaBolle. 

DR. LABOLLE: I think this -- it may come back to 

something I touched on yesterday, which is: What is the 

role of these models that are being developed? And I 

think the answer at one point was, well, to provide 

monthly or submonthly, you know, concentrations, for 

example, with regards to the groundwater model and its 

inputs to the distribution system model. 

And that may not be the role of the groundwater 

model. The groundwater model may play a role in simply 

bracketing the uncertainty in those concentrations that 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
174 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

arrived, and the groundwater model may not be used to even 

predict the specific inputs used on any realization 

because that could certainly -- may be so great that one 

may just want to throw their shot at particular 

concentration inputs over time. 

It depends on how much detail is put into these 

models and how much more effort is put into them. And I 

think from what I've heard -- essentially, I think 

everybody has a valid point hovering. And Tom, 

essentially, you know, we need to -- they need to make the 

best effort. You know, you certainly don't want to waste 

resources. But I think that the role of these models is 

really critical. You know, at what point do we say we're 

just, you know, beating a dead horse here? 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes, Lenny. 

DR. KONIKOW: In terms of the epidemiological study, 

is there a desire or a capability to look at the role of 

all the various contaminants? I mean, we were talking 

about PCE at the Tarawa Terrace. But there was also a 

benzene pollutant, and there's some TCE and PCE and some 

vinyl chloride at Hadnot Point and a longer list of 

contaminants. I mean, is this -- is there enough 

information to factor this into the epidemiological study? 

DR. BOVE: Do you want me to answer? 

DR. KONIKOW: I mean, this gets to, you know, what we 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
175 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

might use the groundwater transport models to help define. 

DR. BOVE: I mean, I don't think we have any 

information as to when Hadnot Point had more TCE than 

benzene. We don't have that data so that -- what we'll -- 

the way that we've characterized Hadnot Point exposure is 

to a mixture of VOCs, TCE being the main component. But 

if we're going to say -- if we're going to infer from that 

-- if we see, for example, an elevated rate of childhood 

leukemia or whatever, we will be able to say, at most, 

that it's this mixture that caused the exposure, similar 

to what we did at Toms River when we said that -- what was 

the -- the Parkway well field, which consisted of TCE, 

PCE, and this exotic chemical, styrene, acrylonitrile 

trimer, and which one was it? 

Well, they were all together. You know, or when I 

studied trihalomethanes, well, which one caused the neural 

tube defect increase? Was it the chloroform? Was it HX? 

What -- what was it? That's how Hadnot Point looks to me. 

It's a mixture with TCE being the main component, and to 

make inferences, I would have to say that TCE is the main 

component. But, just as you said, there's benzene. 

There's all these other contaminants that could also cause 

or be suspected of causing childhood leukemia. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. The floor is open for things 

that you think have been not addressed or not addressed 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
176 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

adequately, things that you commented on in premeeting. 

So let's put them on the table. David. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: I'm just going to return to your 

suggestion because the panel statement had, in terms of 

advancing the state of the art, and just comment that what 

it really looks like to me is the other bookend to Dover 

Township that really is going to help define the 

limitations of the methodology because there's such great 

uncertainty here as compared to a very different case at 

the other end. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Ben, do you want to start? 

Anything that's not been put on the table or put on the 

table to your dissatisfaction? 

MR. HARDING: I thought that's what we were doing 

just now. Then we got interrupted to respond to your 

charge. 

COURT REPORTER: Microphone, please. 

MR. HARDING: Again, the issue, monochloride, we've 

raised it a couple of times, but I think it's something 

that should not be neglected in our reconstructions. 

DR. CLARK: I think that the issues have been 

addressed pretty thoroughly in an open forum. I'm very 

satisfied with the discussion. 

DR. JOHNSON: David? 

DR. DOUGHERTY: (Shakes head) 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
177 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. JOHNSON: James? 

DR. UBER: Well, just a couple of very specific, 

small questions. 

DR. JOHNSON: I'm trying to make the point this is an 

open discussion. 

DR. UBER: Open discussion; okay. Just because I had 

a couple of items here that I didn't have -- obviously, I 

didn't think I had answers to, and I was just curious. In 

the -- in the Hadnot Point area, what kind of plant 

production data is available now and historically? 

MR. MASLIA: Basically the same that we have on all 

the plants. When we have asked for plant introductions, 

the one that we have monthly data for -- well, it gives us 

a chart, and it lists all the water-treatment plants. 

DR. UBER: Okay. So nothing more than monthly? 

MR. MASLIA: I haven't looked at the actual 

individual well records at Hadnot Point, but for the 

plant -- 

DR. UBER: The plant is monthly. So they didn't have 

to report anything daily or didn't report daily water 

production? 

DR. POMMERENK: Actually, they do. 

DR. UBER: They do? 

DR. POMMERENK: I mean, in the recent past, I have 

personally have data from 1998 on this daily production at 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
178 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

each of the plants. 

MR. MASLIA: But not for the present -- not for the 

study period? 

DR. POMMERENK: No; not for the study period. The 

information was also for the current. 

MR. FAYE: All of the data that I'm familiar with 

from Hadnot Point, from the well-construction data to the 

contaminant data to the supply data, you could probably 

generally characterize that as at a higher level of 

quality and number -- somewhat higher level of quality and 

number than what is available or what was available for 

Tarawa Terrace. 

We can define the relevant issues that we've all 

talked about in a well-production contamination, temporal 

distribution of contaminants, spatial distributions, et 

cetera. We can probably define that somewhat better at 

Hadnot Point. Historical record: somewhat better at 

Hadnot Point; not greatly record, but somewhat -- greatly 

better, but somewhat better than we could at Tarawa 

Terrace. 

DR. UBER: But with regard to temporal resolution -- 

MR. FAYE: That too. 

DR. UBER: Okay. So the subtext of that is that -- 

the only reason why I'm asking that is because I'm 

thinking of the issue of interconnectiveness. And I'm 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
179 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

thinking of just, in terms of the simplest model, if one 

had daily water production and one had information on 

base, then, you know, conceivably, you could look at a 

statistical approach that would allow you to say, with 

some degree of confidence, all of the water was -- all of 

the water within this area was coming from this plant or, 

no, there's definitely a shortfall. It had to come from 

somewhere else. That's why I was asking that. 

MR. FAYE: I don't think -- the folks from Camp 

Lejeune can correct me. But I don't think the actual 

amount of water available versus need at Hadnot Point is 

not an issue. Where it was an issue was at Tarawa Terrace 

for a couple of years. 

DR. UBER: I was talking about the Holcomb area, 

whether or not that ever got water from, you know, the 

other two interconnects. So it was my recollection you 

got about .8 MGD here and you got about three down here. 

That's the data that I saw. And so I'm thinking, you 

know, does it go down to .4 and go up to 3.4 on a 

statistical basis? That's what I'm trying to think about. 

MR. FAYE: Everything that I know regarding the 

connection between Hadnot Point and Holcomb Boulevard is 

that there -- over the years from 1973 to the present, 

there were possibly some very short-term, intermittent 

connections between the two systems; i.e., Hadnot Point to 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
180 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Holcomb Boulevard. Okay? That's that connection. 

Between Holcomb Boulevard and Tarawa Terrace, there 

was a supplemental connection, also possibly intermittent; 

but a lot more continuous than the previous situation 

between Hadnot Point and Holcomb Boulevard between 1985 

and 1987 Holcomb Boulevard to Tarawa Terrace. Okay? 

DR. UBER: Okay. Well, that's just -- that degree of 

certainty that you just expressed is contrary to what I 

heard before. I mean, that was our whole -- the whole 

basis of our discussion of, you know, is Hadnot 

distribution system a self-contained entity or is there 

significant -- I'm sorry. 

Is Holcomb a self-contained entity, or is there some 

leakage from a contaminated area? That comment just 

indicates that, no, or very, very intermittently. And so 

I'm -- yeah; with the exception of those two years. 

That's right; with the exception of those two years. 

That was so -- we go back to the comments before that 

was when we were saying, you know, we need to have some 

archaeological investigation to look at this. So I'm, 

frankly, uncertain about the degree of certainty, I guess. 

MR. MASLIA: Yeah; yeah. We definitely agree with 

that. And that's my take on the discussion this morning 

would be to put some effort into trying to reduce the 

uncertainty or refine the understanding on the 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
181 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

interconnection issue. 

DR. UBER: Okay. 

DR. BOVE: It's very important because we're going to 

be telling people and putting it on our Web site that if 

you lived here at this particular time you were exposed or 

not exposed. This is going to be information for 

everybody -- anyone can see on the Web site, so we need to 

nail this down. 

DR. UBER: Okay. So that was my rationale for asking 

those questions about the production -- production data. 

The other thing that I was just curious about is I think 

-- I guess I know the answer to this. But is there any 

data at all on customer complaints (laughter)? 

MR. MASLIA: Well, this past spring I was on the 

airline, coming back to Atlanta, and one of the Marines 

that was on there with me -- they knew that we were doing 

some testing. And he says, "Well, the water tastes fine, 

but I could use a hot shower." 

DR. UBER: All right. You know the reason why I was 

asking that is -- and I don't know anything about the -- I 

don't know anything about taste and odor thresholds for 

the levels of these contaminants. But if they had any 

kind of record-keeping of complaint data or things or even 

in terms of surveys of people. If anybody here knows 

anything about taste and odor thresholds, it might be an 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
182 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

interesting survey question. You know, did the water 

smell like gasoline, that type thing. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Any unfinished business, Lenny? 

DR. KONIKOW: Well, I think yesterday in the modeling 

we had lots of specific comments and everything, and I'm 

sure you'll consider them. I have just one residual 

specific question, which I don't recall was addressed, and 

it may have been. 

But in advective transport, I think Bob said -- or at 

least I remember reading in the report -- that he placed 

or seeded particles 600 feet, I believe, east or west of 

ABC Cleaners; west, I believe. And this somehow led to 

the conclusion that the source of PCE in TT-23 was not the 

ABC Cleaners. Am I remembering that right or wrong? 

MR. FAYE: Well, you're -- you are remembering it 

right, but the conclusion is wrong. It was just a poorly 

written statement, Lenny. What I meant to say was that, 

yeah, I think ultimately the PCE anywhere in that 

vicinity, the source was ABC Cleaners. 

DR. KONIKOW: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: It's just that when the -- when TT-23 was 

turned on, probably some time in the summer of 1984, and 

only operated for, maybe, four or five months and in 

January of 1995 all of a sudden here are these elevated 

concentrations of PCE found in the well and you're 1600 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
183 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

feet from ABC Cleaners, the conclusion that I was trying 

to draw or make was that, obviously, whatever PCE entered 

that well in that very short interval of pumping had to be 

much nearer the well than ABC Cleaners. 

And then I went on to the explanation of the 

overlapping, contributing areas and suggested a 

possibility for how that area north, immediately north, of 

TT-23 had become somewhat contaminated with the PCE. So 

you remembered it right, but I wrote it wrong. 

DR. KONIKOW: That's okay. Thanks. 

DR. JOHNSON: Tom, unfinished business? 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. Well, since I've been accused of 

being on hallucinogenics, I might as well continue 

hallucinating here and make an observation that I think's 

going to happen is: If we sat here today and figured out 

about when the plume hit Well TT-26, we could probably -- 

with the data we have, including the model we've run, we 

could probably say it's about the six-month window. 

So what we're going to do is take another year and do 

-- and possibly do a tremendous job. It's going to be an 

outstanding modeling job and put all the uncertainty on, 

and I'll bet the answer's going to be about the same 

six-month window that we go today. That's my prediction 

of probably what is going to come out of the results. 

But having said that, I think, you know, the study 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
184 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

team's outstanding. I have tremendous respect for the 

ATSDR people: Bob and the others. I think they're doing 

just a super job, and, you know, if anything, they're 

probably doing a little too good of a job, but that's, you 

know, not a bad criticism. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. Vijay, anything 

that's not been addressed to this point that you'd like to 

bring up? 

DR. SINGH: No. 

DR. JOHNSON: Peter? 

DR. POMMERENK: I don't have anything either. 

DR. JOHNSON: Eric? 

DR. LABOLLE: I'm clean (laughter). 

DR. JOHNSON: This is a government facility, 

gentlemen. I don't know if there's anyone out there with 

bottles waiting for us or not. 

DR. LABOLLE: But I would like to comment on the 

six-month factor. I really -- I think that that's -- not 

the six-month factor, the six-month window of arrival time 

here. 

I think that that's a bit optimistic. Actually, my 

experience has been if one were to really address the 

level of uncertainty of the hydrogeology with a method 

capable of doing that -- and at this point, I don't see 

that that is in the cards for this, given the time frame 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
185 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

in which they want to complete the job and the approach 

that's been taken already. I think you're already down a 

path that doesn't allow for the kind of thing I refer to. 

But in that context, I think one would find that the 

uncertainty in arrival would actually be much greater than 

that, possibly. I mean, TT-26 may be close enough to the 

source that that's narrowed down some of the six months 

and is still kind of optimistic. 

DR. WALSKI: So I'm even being too optimistic then. 

DR. LABOLLE: But it may be -- it may be quite -- it 

may become clear with a little more analysis that it 

certainly did arrive prior to the study period beginning 

in '68. And that's something, I think, that that's 

another role for the groundwater model in this context. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Before I, starting with Eric, 

ask for your individual recommendations and advice on the 

groundwater work or the system distribution work, Morris 

and Frank, are there things that are unfinished in your 

minds? Are there things that you want the panel to 

address now that haven't been addressed? 

MR. MASLIA: No; only, Jim, you did ask about water 

quality complaints, and Jerry just brought this document 

here. Under Item No. 37, it says, "There have been 

complaints concerning water quality residents aboard Camp 

Lejeune." And that's dated -- I don't have the exact date 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
186 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

on this, but it's one of the released Camp Lejeune 

documents. So there apparently have been complaints. But 

other than that -- '93. It's 1993. 

Other than that, we've gotten -- or at least I've 

gotten some clear indications and clear assessment of what 

we've done and what we need to do. And I'd just like to 

thank each one of the panel members. I think it's always 

better to have internal discussions as opposed to, as 

Frank said, putting it out on our Web site and then 

hearing the discussions. 

DR. JOHNSON: Don't be too conciliatory. You've not 

heard their final recommendations. Frank, anything that's 

not been discussed to your satisfaction? 

DR. BOVE: Thank you very much. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Starting with Eric and then 

working our way around, I'd ask for your individual 

recommendations as to how ATSDR should proceed, given this 

day and a half of discussions, and you can give that 

advice, make those recommendations any way you wish: 

specific to groundwater, specific to the waterdistribution systems, or both. So here's your -- at least 

for this meeting of this expert panel. What are your 

recommendations? 

DR. LABOLLE: I suppose I'd begin with regards to the 

water-distribution system, parsing out this chronology, as 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
187 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

has been suggested by members of the panel, and focusing 

on those times when we know there was contamination in the 

system and there wasn't interconnection and assessing the 

need for the water-distribution system during those times 

-- the water-distribution system model during those times. 

And I think the model itself that's been constructed 

to date may be useful in this for showing that, you know, 

what comes in this one line into the system reaches the 

tap. It may be obvious to those of us sitting here, but 

it may not be obvious to the public. And I think that I 

would recommend at least demonstrating that to the effect 

that it can be demonstrated and then identifying those 

other areas where the water-distribution system model may 

be important. 

And I think if there's effort to be put into that 

that's what I would focus on in terms of the waterdistribution system model. In terms of the groundwater 

model, as I mentioned several times, you know, my 

principal concern is with the geologic uncertainty and the 

source terms to the system and how they're modeled and a 

way to the uncertainty within the context of the model. 

If there isn't the plan to do that in a realistic 

way, a geologically realistic way, then one should 

acknowledge, you know, the outcome of what they're seeing 

and the uncertainty in the outcome with regards to the 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
188 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

pre-existing characterization that kind of went into it 

and the inability to modify that within the context and 

the constraints of the modeling approach. 

And I think that that's important because that's -- 

what it's going to do is constrain the model outcome to 

kind of a precondition, you know, range of exposure 

estimates that don't necessarily encompass the degree of 

uncertainty that we really have about this system. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Peter. 

DR. POMMERENK: Yeah. My recommendations follow 

almost exactly on that line. I think the focus on the 

groundwater modeling should be on determining the range of 

concentrations and times that the contaminants may have 

arrived or may not have arrived at the wells. And as the 

panel has, in my opinion, fully stated that's the driving 

force for everything that is downstream of that. 

So again, yeah, the focus should be -- you know, 

several suggestions have been made, you know, for example, 

Monte Carlo simulations and so on, to derive a measure of 

the uncertainty of those values that come out of the 

groundwater model. 

With respect to the water-distribution modeling, if I 

understand this correctly at this point, the main 

uncertainty that we have right now left over is the degree 

of interconnection between Holcomb Boulevard and Hadnot 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
189 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Point. Although we have heard -- we've heard two opinions 

that think that these interconnections were only 

intermittent and short-term connections. It would be good 

to just be certain of this fact, if possible, and go from 

there. 

If, indeed, these interconnections don't have any 

effect on the epidemiological study, then we can 

essentially proceed and say, you know, whatever comes into 

the plant goes out everywhere in the distribution system, 

and that would essentially eliminate the need to, you 

know, develop further sophisticated distribution-system 

models. 

My recommendation is not to continue on the field 

efforts at this time until these issues have been 

resolved. That's all I have. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Vijay. 

DR. SINGH: Essentially, I would just reiterate what 

has already been said earlier as well as this morning and 

yesterday. First of all, I would like to take this 

opportunity to state on the record that the ATSDR group, 

especially Morris Maslia and his group, have done really 

an outstanding job, and I have nothing but admiration 

for their work, both quality-wise as well as scientific 

rigor-wise. 

Having said that, coming back to the groundwater 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
190 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

modeling area, as we have cited so many times, I think 

it's important that there is a clear statement and a clear 

discussion of the model assumptions, the hypotheses, as 

well as the model limitations because no model is a 

perfect model. That's why we call it as a model. 

And from the standpoint of public, I think it's very 

important to say very clearly what the assumptions are and 

what the model limitations are and which model hypotheses 

are, which directly would reflect on the quality and the 

reliability of the model. 

And then the issue of uncertainty and risk analysis 

that we have been discussing since yesterday -- I think in 

the groundwater modeling area -- this issue has to be 

clearly, explicitly taken into consideration, and then 

there has to be a better accounting of the recharge, which 

really has not been done so far. Recharge has been taken 

as an average value on a yearly basis, which in my view is 

a very gross estimate of the rainfall water that goes into 

the ground. 

After all, it is the rainfall water which enters into 

the ground which is responsible for transporting the 

contaminants into the groundwater body. And so it is, to 

me, of importance that the water percolation and the water 

recharge are more accurately estimated and included in the 

groundwater modeling area. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
191 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

In terms of the water-distribution network, I think 

what Peter and Eric have said, I tend to concur with. The 

original effort on water discovery, I think, will be well 

worth the effort because there is no substitute for data, 

for data is the only source through which we get the 

information through which we communicate with nature. So 

I would strongly suggest that they continue their effort 

in terms of discovering or rediscovering the archaeology 

of the data as far as they can go. 

But I also tend to concur with Tom in terms of the 

water-distribution modeling. I think the important point 

here is once the groundwater model produces water 

contamination through which we can quantify the water 

contamination at the wellhead and we can also have some 

data on the water contamination in terms of time and the 

depth. I think that is what is essentially going to be 

primarily responsible for determining the exposure from an 

epidemiological viewpoint. And I think that, to me, is 

essentially the central issue, which is what all this 

interval is meant for. 

And so I'm not quite certain if a very detailed 

water-distribution modeling is really necessary. I think 

a simpler one might suffice, but if they have already done 

it and they're doing it, it certainly it's not going to 

hurt. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
192 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Tom. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. Thanks. Yeah. I want to just 

second, I guess, what other people have said, and we have 

an excellent study team here, and they've done a very 

high-quality job. And it's just really ironic to find 

myself in the position of not selling modeling because 

usually that's what I do for a living is sell models and 

try to get people to use them. So I find myself, kind of, 

in an odd position here of saying, "Don't put too much 

emphasis on the models, but go for the real data." 

And trying to -- I think, maybe, you might remember 

things better if I could just tell a story here. There's 

a guy walking down the street and sees another fellow on 

the ground on his hands and knees, looking around. The 

first guy -- he goes, "Well, what are you doing down 

there?" And he goes, "Well, I lost a $50 bill. I can't 

find it. 

So the second guy comes and helps the guy look for 

the $50 bill, and after about five minutes, he says, 

"Well, how come you haven't found it? I mean, where did 

you lose it?" And he goes, "Well, I lost it over there in 

that vacant lot." And he goes, "Well, why aren't we over 

there looking?" And he goes, "Well, it's dark over there, 

and there's broken glass and rats and stuff. I don't want 

to go over there." 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
193 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

And I think that's kind of the position that the 

study team is in. It's kind of nice to work with models, 

but I think they're going to have to spend their time in 

the archives with the rats and the broken bottles, looking 

for data because that's where you're going to get the most 

for your effort is not being under a light in a nice area, 

but going to the archives and digging. And I think 

they're a qualified team, and they're going to do a great 

job with this. 

DR. JOHNSON: Great. Thank you. Lenny. 

DR. KONIKOW: Well, again, I second all the comments 

that have been made up to now. I again just reiterate 

with the groundwater modeling and the transport modeling 

that ultimately we're limited in what we can do in terms 

of the available data. I mean, you know, we don't have 

concentration data before 1980 or '82. And so everything 

we do for looking at distribution before then is going to 

be a little fuzzy. 

We'll do the best we can with the flow model. You'll 

do the best you can with the flow model based on the 

distribution of pumpage, and that may be about the best 

you can do. In terms of, you know, the modeling approach 

and sensitivity analyses, this is all stuff that should be 

done. And one of the things to keep in mind is that your 

hydraulic heads in your flow model may be relatively 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
194 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

insensitive to certain things to which the concentration 

distribution is highly sensitive. 

And so there's not necessarily a direct transfer 

value in terms of the sensitivity analysis and uncertainty 

analysis between the flow and transport model. So it's 

just something to be aware of. 

DR. JOHNSON: Jim. 

DR. UBER: I'll leave it to the groundwater 

colleagues to talk about the -- what particular elements 

to include any probabilistic analysis or whatever form 

that may take, and I think that's clearly appropriate. My 

only reason for mentioning that is that I would have a 

suggestion that -- about the way the results of those 

analysis be portrayed. And specifically, for me, I focus 

on the precise connection between the groundwater resource 

and the water-distribution system, which is this pipe 

header that comes from the well field and goes into the 

distribution system. 

And I think that the results of that stochastic 

analysis should be expressed in terms of the uncertainty 

or some type of interesting plot of the variability or 

uncertainty or both in that concentration that it is 

delivered to the distribution system, considering not only 

the uncertainty and the geohydrologic variables and the 

model set-up, but also the uncertainty in how the wells 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
195 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

are operated. 

I believe that if the uncertainty in that quantity is 

quantified within some bounds, then what we have been 

talking about today, which is to, maybe, allow data 

discovery to drive the train for a little while longer. 

If we continued on data discovery and then you had the 

results of that uncertainty analysis, then between those 

two, I think it would become clear what to do, if 

anything, more with the water-distribution system model. 

And I would just leave it at that. 

DR. JOHNSON: David. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Well, yeah, I think people have hit a 

lot of the points, and we could repeat them several times, 

as we have through the past couple of days. I think the 

summary that I have is that the model complexity is too 

far out in front of the data in the characterization of 

the uncertainties. It's something that can be corrected, 

I think, and reasonably without major correction. It's 

just a correction. 

The three issues that come to mind, and two of them 

are on the groundwater side and one's a general, easy 

observation about the archaeology, about interconnects. 

And so that's number three, but the first two are about 

the things that drive concentrations in the groundwater 

delivered by the wells. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
196 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

There's the pumping schedules that, I think, keep 

coming up, but I'm not sure we can do very much about 

them. The things that we haven't characterized enough are 

source, the mass loading, and the accretion; not just the 

reinfiltration but the septic returns and making sure 

we've got those in a time -- reasonably timed; very, very 

consistent with the climate. 

And finally, making any statements about the 

groundwater issues for Hadnot, I don't feel comfortable 

about it. I don't think we've had enough conversation or 

information about that, and that may be something that you 

may need your next panel to tend to. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Robert. 

DR. CLARK: Well, I don't think I'm going to say 

anything new or original, but I am generally supportive of 

the current plan. But I think with any project of this 

complexity and magnitude, there always adjustments that 

take place in the process. And it seems to me that a 

couple of those are the re-emphasis on data discovery, 

which I think is a very important issue. 

But the uncertainty issues with regard to the model 

parameters and the stochastic nature of demand and then 

the consequences of those yield in terms of the output and 

data reliability. It seems to me that the real issues 

surrounding this study are really going to come in the 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
197 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

public health and public policy area in terms of the 

epidemiological results. Excuse me. That's going to be 

the one that the public is going to look at, and the 

public health community is going to look at very, very 

carefully. 

So I would suggest anything that needs to be done to 

support effort to make it more scientifically defensible 

is an important aspect to the project with the only 

comments, which I've made before, that the issue of 

transformation by-products is an important one to look at. 

And also, what has actually been measured, I guess, 

in terms of some of the samples that have been taken prior 

to the establishment of the MCLs or vault organic 

chemicals, and this concludes an excellent team. I'm more 

impressed after listening to the presentation than I was 

before when I read the background data. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. And Ben. 

MR. HARDING: I want to thank Morris and ATSDR team 

for the opportunity to sit in on this panel. I'm very 

impressed with what you guys have done. It's an eyeopener to see some of the kinds of efforts you guys have 

made. 

What I want to suggest is that now you sort of step 

back and take a higher level look at this again. Take a 

little break. Reassess the requirements, starting with 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
198 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the epidemiological study. Just say, "What is it that we 

absolutely have to have and what are the things that are 

just sort of nice?" And probably just toss the latter. 

But certainly prioritize your requirements, and then make 

a decision based on a prioritization how you want to use 

your resources best. 

With regard to the groundwater, which I can only 

kibbutz about, but I think it seems clear that the Hadnot 

Point situation requires some more understanding and 

possibly some more quantitative work modeling simulation. 

I think in support of that and in support of, also, 

the water-distribution system, it's appropriate to do more 

of what we've referred to as data archaeology and continue 

in parallel while you're assessing your requirements. It 

seems that the groundwater work should express the 

uncertainty of, at least, the arrival time quantitatively 

and in a probabilistic framework. 

With regard to the water-distribution system, the big 

issue here, it seems to me, is -- well, it may not be the 

biggest issue, but it seems to be the most contentious -- 

is to understand these interconnections. And I would 

suggest that if it turns out the systems are 

interconnected and they're interconnected in such a way 

that water flows from Hadnot Point into Holcomb Boulevard 

based on the grades that you consider excluding those 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
199 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

periods of time and those populations that are affected, 

if you could possibly do that, rather than trying to model 

that particular situation. 

Otherwise, in the other periods where the systems can 

be viewed as operating independently, I think the simple 

mixing models are adequate. And there, the most important 

issue, aside from the groundwater arrival time, is the 

dispatch of the wells. And that might be supported by the 

data archaeology. 

And then, finally, and I think this would be a big 

contribution to the practice. Again, I've said this over 

and over and over again. But to apply methods of 

propagating your uncertainty quantitatively. Typically, 

Monte Carlo is the way people do that. It doesn't mean 

you have to run your groundwater model in a Monte Carlo 

framework. There's other ways to do. 

I think it's practical, and I'd take a real hard look 

at that because it's very clear from our discussions there 

is a lot of uncertainty here. And again, thanks for the 

opportunity. I've very much enjoyed this. I'm very 

impressed with what you guys have accomplished. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Any reaction from the agency 

representatives before we close? 

MR. MASLIA: Only to thank everyone for spending the 

time going through the material. Obviously, it was not a 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
200 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

polished report by any means. But, again, to emphasize, 

we do take your recommendations and suggestions very 

seriously. It will, I believe, help guide us. We were at 

a stage where we needed, at least, some external input and 

guidance and just to thank everyone for their time and 

effort. 

DR. JOHNSON: And in closing, one observation from 

the Chair. I've mentioned the term "cost benefit." And I 

think, as Ben and others said, I think you -- there's time 

now, and I think there's need now for the agency to step 

back and reflect and digest what you've heard over the 

past day and a half. 

And I think you need to ask yourself, in the vain of 

getting data in which you have confidence, what benefit is 

it going to be toward that goal if other activities are 

done or not done? What's going to be the cost of some of 

these things you've put on the table? And perhaps, as a 

result of the last day and a half, some suggestions have 

been to perhaps reorder those activities? So take a hard 

look at the cost of what you're proposing to do in the 

future, factoring in the advice you've heard here from 

this panel. 

And with that, I'd like to close by thanking, as the 

Chair, this panel. I've been in public health for about 

40 years, and so I've attended lots and lots of meetings. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
201 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

I've been on lots and lots of committees. Some 

committees, I've chaired. Some other committees, I simply 

chewed on as a member. But this is, certainly, in my 

experience, the most able and the most helpful committee 

of which I've had the privilege of being associated. So 

really, accolades to the panel. 

I'd also like, on behalf of the panel, to thank the 

agency representatives: Morris, Frank, Bob Faye, and 

others who really in an exemplary way represented the 

agency and interacted with this panel and with the public 

representatives. 

On behalf of the panel, I also would like to thank 

the public input and the public representatives here. And 

what was added was really important insights that we would 

not have had otherwise brought forward and were very 

valuable. 

A special thanks to our reporter, who kept us all in 

line, starting with the Chair. So many thanks for your 

expert work. And lastly, many thanks to the 

administrative staff, Ann Walker and her colleagues, who 

have made much of what has been brought to you happen in 

terms of materials, arrangements, et cetera, et cetera. 

So with that, using the prerogative of the Chair, I 

declare us adjourned. Thank you. 

(Whereupon, the proceeding was adjourned at 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
202 

1 approximately 1:35 p.m.)

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES