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 I 

The verbatim transcript of the meeting of the Peer 

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

Atlanta, Georgia, on Monday, March 28, 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 I 

March 28, 2005 

PANELISTS (in alphabetical order)..................... 4 

HOUSEKEEPING RULES 

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

 

OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTION OF CHAIR 

By Dr. Sinks..................................... 7 

OPENING STATEMENT AND PRESENTATION OF CHARGE 

By Dr. Johnson................................... 11 

CAMP LEJEUNE EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDY 

By Dr. Ruckart................................... 21 

SUMMARY OF WATER-MODELING ACTIVITIES 

By Mr. Maslia.................................... 40 

GROUNDWATER MODELING: APPROACH, FIELD DATA, DETAILS 

By Mr. Faye...................................... 65 

REVIEW OF PREMEETING QUESTIONS 

By Dr. Johnson...................................149 

AGENCY QUESTION NOS. 1 - 3 TO PANEL REGARDING GROUNDWATER 

By Dr. Johnson...................................166 

PUBLIC COMMENT 

By Dr. Johnson...................................199 

AGENCY QUESTION NOS. 4 - 8 TO PANEL REGARDING GROUNDWATER 

By Dr. Johnson...................................226 

CERTIFICATE OF THE REPORTER...........................254 

 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
3 

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 
4 

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. 

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 
5 

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 

 8:38 a.m. 

MR. MASLIA: Good morning. Welcome, everybody, to 

our expert panel meeting. We're going to wait a few 

minutes for some other people to arrive that are part of 

the program this morning. But in the meantime, I thought 

I would go through some housekeeping rules, if that's okay 

with everybody. And just to our panel members and 

everybody else that had to fly in, either yesterday or 

this morning, through the weather, thank you for making 

the effort. We appreciate it. 

And -- so real briefly, for those not familiar with 

ATSDR campus, we're right over here. And there's a 

cafeteria here and down here as well is the restaurant in 

the Century Center hotel plus some other restaurants 

around. And so, on campus, there's two cafeterias and the 

restaurant. There will be two buses for lunch from the 

hotel. We've made arrangements to eat at the restaurant 

or the dining area at the Century Center hotel. 

And I'm going to ask for those other guests, the 

nonpanelists, to allow the panelists to take the first bus 

-- it holds 12 -- so they can get to the business of 

eating and getting back. And then there's a second bus 

that will take anyone else to that, or you're free to go 

any place off-campus. There's a variety of foods and 

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 

other establishments. 

Located on the first floor behind the guard station 

through the metal detector that you passed through are 

restrooms and candy machines and Coke machines, if the 

bottled water or the candy that Ann brought will not 

suffice. 

Messages will be at a board near the registration 

desk, if you need someone to -- if you've got messages. 

And there's also a telephone out in the outer alcove for 

you to use. And any copying, faxing, or other needs, Ann 

Walker, who's staying by the door right there, and Joann 

-- I don't see Joann. She's out in the hallway -- Joann 

Flesner have been very gracious to stand by at a moment's 

notice and at the panel's needs to do anything you need. 

And you are being recorded, audiotaped. So we ask 

you to speak into the microphones, primarily for the 

purpose so ATSDR can have a transcript and a report of 

your comments so we can deal with them directly after the 

meeting. There will be a report published of this 

meeting; not the transcript, but a summary report that 

will be available to everybody. And we're asking you to 

silence your cell phones. If you can, just turn them off, 

which would be our preference. If you have it on vibrate 

and you're at a microphone, everyone will hear the 

vibration go off. And for those in the audience, the 

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 

microphones and the court reporter can pick up your side 

conversation, even though you're not on mike. So I'll 

just remind you of that, that it will be picked up. 

And with that, that's -- any other questions or 

housekeeping issues? If not, Dr. Sinks, are you prepared? 

It's my pleasure to introduce Dr. Tom Sinks, who is our 

director of science and acting administrator for ATSDR. 

DR. SINKS: Thanks, Morris. Well, good morning to 

all of you. It's a pleasure to be here. As Morris 

indicated, I'm the acting director for both ATSDR and the 

National Center for Environmental Health, a title I've 

been -- I've had for all of three weeks. And as actings 

go, that may be a record. Who knows? It could be two 

more days; it could be two more months. But it's actually 

-- it's been thrilling, embarrassing, exciting. It's been 

-- it's been a good ride so far in three weeks. 

This is a -- this is a great opportunity for us to, I 

think, do what ATSDR wants to be doing in these very 

complex sites that we deal with. And the three things, I 

think, we really want to accomplish here is to make sure 

that we challenge ourselves to do the best science that we 

can in what, in this particular example, is a very 

complex, difficult study that we're trying to conduct. 

And in this case, it's the modeling of drinking water 

supplied to people who were living at Camp Lejeune many, 

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 

many years ago and trying to recreate exposure scenarios, 

which have occurred pretty far in the past; to do it in a 

scientifically credible way; and make it as valid as we 

can. And reconstructing these types of scenarios are 

quite difficult, and we do need help in trying to do that. 

So the first thing is the best science. The second 

thing is trying to do this in a fairly transparent 

process, to be open to criticism, constructive comments, 

to let people know what it is that we are trying to 

accomplish, and to give them that idea upfront so that 

when we arrive at our conclusions, people have a good 

understanding of what we were doing and how we were trying 

to do it. And this panel is helping to play a role for us 

and when -- to challenge ourselves to the best job that we 

can. 

The panel members here are nationally and 

internationally recognized experts in the areas of 

groundwater hydraulics, fate and transport analyses, 

water-distribution systems, numerical-modeling techniques. 

And we're delighted to have you-all here. 

Again, our objectives are to secure from the panel 

members, who are not ATSDR employees but are people from 

outside of ATSDR, your critiques and your approaches and 

your recommendations for what we're about to do. This 

information will be made public. 

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 

Morris, will we put it on the Web site? Is that -- 

will the report be on the Web site? 

MR. MASLIA: It's our intent to. 

DR. SINKS: Okay. So it will also be open to the 

public just beyond this meeting. And I presume we'll put 

a response to the recommendations on there as well, how 

we're going to handle that. 

My next challenge is to introduce Dr. Barry Johnson. 

Barry is sitting at the head of the table. He looks 

younger every time I see him. I think it's because he 

doesn't have to be the assistant administrator of ATSDR, 

and I think a great weight has probably come off of his 

shoulders. He's smiling. It's the first time I've seen 

him smiling in years. I tend to be chasing Barry around. 

Barry -- I've known of Barry since 1985 when I became 

an EIS officer assigned to NIOSH. As soon as I arrived to 

NIOSH, Barry took off. He left NIOSH, and he went to 

ATSDR where he effectively really became the first 

assistant administrator of ATSDR, pulling it away from 

CDC, creating a separate agency and really building it to 

what it is today. Barry retired in 1986 -- no. That's 

the wrong date; 1999. 

DR. JOHNSON: It depends on how you interpret 

retirement (laughter). 

DR. SINKS: Barry left ATSDR in -- 

NANCY 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 

DR. JOHNSON: 1999. 

DR. SINKS: -- 1999 and has joined the Rollins School 

of Public Health over on Clifton Road as an adjunct 

professor there. He's currently working on a lot of 

editorial boards. He's writing books. He has one in 

publication right now, and it's his job to give you-all a 

charge for this conference and to lead this throughout the 

next couple of days. I do plan to stop in from time to 

time during the course of the next two days. I won't be 

able to attend the entire meeting, but I wish you-all 

success in a fairly difficult and complex situation. 

So thanks a lot and, Barry, I think it's all yours. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Dr. Sinks, for those kind 

remarks and sage advice to the panel. We have a full 

agenda ahead of us over the next two days, building upon 

the direction that Dr. Sinks has provided to us. As you 

all know, I'm sort of a last-second fill-in for someone 

else, and I certainly look forward to trying to be as 

helpful as I can. 

When Mr. Maslia called me about a week ago and said 

he needed a Chair, I listened. And I then reminded him of 

my retired status, my membership as a senior citizen, and 

so forth and so on. I said, "Morris, I'm willing to 

consider this, but there are many personal sacrifices I 

have to bring to your attention and -- for example, 

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 

foregoing my morning, afternoon, and early evening naps; 

my shawl; my warm cocoa; and, of course, the prune juice." 

And he said, "Johnson, these sound more like excuses 

than sacrifices." And with that unassailable logic, I 

signed on. So I look forward to working with you over the 

next couple of days. Perhaps, we can get it done in a 

little bit less time. 

The agency has asked me to present both a statement 

from the Chair as well as the charge to the panel. I'm 

assuming that you have the charge to the panel, but, I 

will nonetheless go through it shortly. With regard to 

the purpose and scope of this expert peer review panel, it 

is to assess ATSDR's efforts to model groundwater and 

water-distribution systems at the U.S. Marine Corps Base, 

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. 

This work includes data-collection activities, field 

investigations, and water-modeling activities that were 

performed through -- from March through December 2004. 

The panel is specifically charged with considering the 

appropriateness of ATSDR's approach, methods, and time 

requirements related to water-modeling activities. It is 

important to understand that the water-modeling activities 

are in the early stages of analysis; hence, the data and 

interpretations are subject to modifications based in part 

on information provided by members of this expert panel. 

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 

ATSDR expresses a commitment to weigh questions from 

the public and to respond to public comments and 

suggestions in a timely fashion. However, in order for 

this panel to complete its work, it must focus exclusively 

on water-modeling issues. Therefore, the panel will 

address questions and comments that pertain to the watermodeling effort. All other questions and statements will 

be referred to ATSDR staff for consideration and response. 

In particular are -- the ATSDR contact for nonwatermodeling questions is Dr. Frank Bove and -- who will 

handle questions related in particular to the 

epidemiological work, and Mr. Morris Maslia and associates 

will handle the water modeling and other water-related 

questions. 

Any reactions from the panel? Tread on any toes? 

You okay with that? 

(No audible response) 

DR. JOHNSON: I think the bottom-line message here is 

that this is a meeting for the next two days that's going 

to be focused on the water-modeling activities. I 

understand there have been other meetings that have 

focused on other things and so forth. Do you each have a 

copy of the charge to the panel? 

(No audible response) 

DR. JOHNSON: I will read most of that for -- just to 

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 

be sure that it's in the record and it's put before the 

public and would suggest that you follow along as I go 

through this. 

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 

ATSDR, is requesting the panel's opinion with respect to 

the following questions. ATSDR is seeking a majority 

opinion with opposing views. First, will ATSDR's approach 

of using "50-foot cell sizes" for groundwater modeling and 

all pipes, networks for water-distribution system models 

provide sufficient detail required by the epidemiological 

case control study? Should coarser, variable-spacing 

groundwater-model grids or skeletonized-pipe networks for 

water-distribution system models be considered in an 

effort to reduce the length or duration of modeling 

activities? 

Two, is the ATSDR approach of simulating monthly 

conditions using water-distribution system models sound, 

or should ATSDR consider using a continuous simulation for 

the historical period; i.e., 1968 through 1985? If 

continuous simulation should be used, does this approach, 

A, increase or decrease the work effort with respect to 

modeling activities? B, increase or decrease the level of 

uncertainty and variability of simulated results? 

Three, based on information provided by ATSDR to the 

panel, are there modifications or changes that ATSDR 

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 

should consider making in its approach to modeling, A, 

groundwater resources at Camp Lejeune; B, present day; 

i.e., 2004, and historical reconstruction of waterdistribution systems serving Camp Lejeune? If, in the 

panel's majority opinion, ATSDR should consider changes in 

its approach, what specific changes does the panel 

suggest? 

And fourth, compared with other publicly documented 

historical-reconstruction analyses, is the three-year 

project schedule for completing all historicalreconstruction modeling activities appropriate and 

realistic for the amount of work and level of detail 

required by the epi study? If, in the panel's majority 

opinion, ATSDR should modify the project schedule, what 

specific actions and activities does the panel suggest 

ATSDR take to modify the project schedule? 

That is the charge to the panel as developed by 

ATSDR. Any questions or reactions at this time to either 

the statement or the charge to the panel? It is the 

Chair's intent on Day 2 to go through each of these four 

charges, beginning at the "working lunch" on Tuesday. And 

at minimum, I anticipate providing your reactions, your 

advice to the first two charges at the working lunch. 

If we work in, perhaps, an exceptionally, efficiently 

way, then we might try to go through Charges 3 and 4. But 

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 

at least we'll do the first two charges tomorrow at lunch. 

Charges 3 and 4, if they remain unaddressed, will be 

subject to our discussion at the 2:30 period. 

The take-home message to the expert panel is that we 

will provide answers to our -- the best of our ability to 

each of these four charges. Is that okay with the panel? 

(No audible response) 

DR. JOHNSON: At this time, I'd like to ask each of 

the panel members -- and as Dr. Sinks said, it's truly an 

internationally distinguished panel, and we welcome you to 

Atlanta. Sorry the weather wasn't a bit better, but it's 

that time of the year, folks, in Atlanta; pop-up storms. 

I'd like to ask each of you to introduce yourself, 

your affiliation, experiences related to this panel's 

work. And I think I'll ask each of you, as you go through 

your introductions, to give an initial but pithy, succinct 

reaction to what you have read, the information that was 

provided to you. I'm not asking you to pass judgment at 

this time. That's going to be the product of our 

deliberations, your deliberations in particular, but just 

an initial reaction to what you have received. Okay. 

Let's start to my right, if we could, with Dr. 

Walski. 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. My name is Tom Walski. I'm with 

the Haestad Methods Group within Bentley Systems. I've 

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 

been doing water-distribution analysis work since the 

seventies and have worked on systems ranging from 

outhouses at rec areas to the New York City water-supply 

system. I've done some reconstruction of water quality, 

in one case with Ben Harding, who's showing up later on. 

So I have some experience in doing this kind of 

reconstructive work as well. And my initial pithy 

reaction is: Gee, I wish I had the budget that these guys 

had when I was doing my work. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Dr. Singh. 

DR. SINGH: Yes. My name is Vijay Singh. I am a 

faculty member at Louisiana State University. I have been 

involved for many, many years in hydrologic modeling, both 

in surface water as well as groundwater modeling. I have 

also been involved in this kind of analysis as well as 

stochastic modeling, which has involved some 

reconstruction work, more specifically in the area of 

groundwater, particularly the area of surface water as 

reconstruction codes. 

My reaction, based on reading the reams of papers and 

reports that we were supplied, is a very positive one. I 

was much impressed with the level of effort and the 

scientific rigor with which the work has been done. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Please. 

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

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 

AH Environmental Consultants. We specialize in water 

resources, water treatment, water distribution. In such, 

we are involved in water master planning and treatment 

studies and treatability studies. We also do some waterdistribution system modeling, although we don't use 

Haestad methods at this time. 

My particular expertise for this panel is that AH 

Environmental Consultants has been consulting with Camp 

Lejeune for several years in the water resources and 

treatment-distribution system arena. And we have also as 

such supported the Marine Corps in their efforts to 

collect data for this ATSDR study. 

My initial reaction, when I got first involved in 

this project -- as I said, this is a huge effort. And 

what has been collected today is really impressive. Thank 

you. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Let's just continue. 

DR. CLARK: My name's Robert Clark. I spent 41 years 

with the federal government in the U.S. Public Health 

Service in the U.S. EPA as a public health service officer 

for 30 years. And during that time, I was director of the 

drinking-water research division -- water-resources 

research division for EPA for about 14 years and then for 

three years as a senior scientist in the agency and then 

retired in -- about three to four years ago. And since 

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 

that time, I've been consulting and am an adjunct 

professor at the university, which is keeping me busy as 

well. 

Very impressive. I had a chance to work with Morris 

early on when he was working on the Toms River project. 

They've come a long ways; very impressive technical 

effort. I think the questions are even more challenging 

in terms of how can you extend this now to exposure 

epidemiology. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: My name is Dave Dougherty. I'm from 

Subterranean Research in Massachusetts. I spent 15 years 

as a faculty member in civil and environmental engineering 

in California and Vermont. My background started in 

groundwater and moved to modeling and moved to 

optimization and more -- slightly more on the IT side now. 

I think the things that I bring to this particular 

table are the integration of groundwater modeling and 

optimization kind of activities, experience with a lot of 

models in the past, and the most interesting connection is 

when Roger Page and I, in 1985, I think, built the first 

3-D model for Toms River; so just trying to connect the 

loop. 

My reaction is there's been a lot of -- there's been 

a lot of good work here. It is in many ways, in many 

ways, very far advanced in particular narrow areas for the 

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 

project. As a whole, I think we have a lot of 

opportunities to make contributions to the directions that 

need adjustment, and I'm looking forward to it. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. 

DR. UBER: My name is Jim Uber. I'm an associate 

professor at the University of Cincinnati in the 

department of civil and environmental engineering. I'm an 

environmental engineer. My research area is waterdistribution systems analysis. I've been working in that 

area for about 15 years and have, kind of like David, 

focused to some degree on optimization studies and 

calibration techniques for models, particularly on waterquality models for water-distribution systems and as well 

as doing some fieldwork and tracer tests. 

And my initial reaction is that I thought that the 

data that was provided was very comprehensive and in 

particular on the water-distribution systems' side. The 

-- for example, the fieldwork is certainly very much state 

of the art in that area, and I think a central question 

for me is exactly how that fieldwork and those data link 

back to the needs of the epidemiological study and how 

they connect up in a logical way with the historic data 

that is or is not available for what happened some years 

ago. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. 

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 

DR. KONIKOW: My name is Lenny Konikow. I'm a 

research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. 

I've worked for them for over 30 years; to a large extent, 

working on the development and application of solutetransport models, contaminant transport models for 

groundwater systems. One of the first applications I was 

involved in was reconstructing the history of groundwater 

contamination at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado, 

which was kind of the forerunner of the whole installation 

and restoration program in the Department of Defense. 

One of my concerns, reading through all the 

documentations and thinking about this, is the lack of 

historical data from the fifties, sixties, on into the 

seventies. And I see that as presenting a very difficult 

hurdle to overcome in trying to develop the quantitative 

models. There's going to be invariably a lot of 

uncertainty associated with the results of the very 

quantitative models. 

And as Jim said, I'm also a little concerned that I 

don't have a firm feeling yet -- and I hope I get it today 

-- for what -- how the models will be put to use. What is 

needed by the epidemiological studies to come out of the 

models? And for us to evaluate the models and the 

approach to modeling, I think we need a clearer -- or at 

least I need a clearer understanding of how the models are 

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 

going to be used in terms of the epidemiological studies. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. We have two other panelists 

who will be arriving a little bit later: Mr. Harding and 

Dr. LaBolle. Did I pronounce that correctly? We look 

forward to their joining us. Any questions across the 

table to each other? 

(No audible response) 

DR. JOHNSON: My hope is that this is truly an 

interactive panel, and I encourage dialogue, questions 

back and forth across the table amongst the panelists. 

And to the extent that I can help clarify, I will try to 

do that. But this is your panel, and this is your 

opportunity, as we've already heard, to have some concerns 

and some really important questions placed on the table 

already. So keep that up. 

I think, at this time, there's going to be an 

introduction of the epi team and the water-modeling teams, 

Dr. Bove, and Mr. Maslia. 

DR. RUCKART: Good morning. I'm not Dr. Bove, by the 

way. I'm going to be discussing a summary of ATSDR 

activities at Camp Lejeune and hopefully answering your 

question of how the water-modeling component will fit in 

with epi study. 

DR. JOHNSON: Would you introduce yourself, please. 

DR. RUCKART: Yep; next slide. 

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 

DR. JOHNSON: We'd love to know who you are. 

DR. RUCKART: My name's right there. I'm Perri 

Ruckart. I'm the principal investigator of the epi study, 

and my other team members include Dr. Frank Bove, Miss 

Shannon Rossiter, and Dr. Morris Maslia, who I believe 

everyone knows. 

Next slide, please. 

The base began operations at Camp Lejeune in the 

1940s. Currently, there's a population of about 150,000 

living or working on the base, including active military 

personnel, their dependents, retired population, and 

civilian employees. Almost two-thirds of the active 

military personnel and their dependents are under age 25. 

 Next slide. 

Because this is a military base, there has been 

considerable in-and-out migration. It is estimated that 

about one-third of the mothers receiving prenatal care at 

the base hospital during the 1970s and '80s were 

transferred off base before delivery, and the average 

duration in base-family housing is two years. There are 

15 different base-housing areas. And there are three 

water-distribution systems serving the base-family housing 

area: Hadnot Point, Tarawa Terrace, and Holcomb Boulevard. 

And the dates they were constructed are shown here on this 

slide. 

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 

Underground storage tanks were installed during the 

1940s and '50s, which contaminated the Hadnot Point wells, 

primarily, with TCE. And ABC One-Hour Cleaners began 

operations on the base in 1954, and the cleaners were near 

the supply wells for Tarawa Terrace, and that water system 

was primarily contaminated with PCE. 

ATSDR published a public health assessment for Camp 

Lejeune in 1997. Because of the limited information in 

the scientific literature on how chlorinated solvents in 

drinking water might affect a fetus or a child, the public 

health assessment recommended that we conduct an 

epidemiologic study to evaluate whether maternal exposure 

was associated with the higher risk of having an adverse 

birth outcome or whether maternal or infant exposure was 

associated with a childhood cancer. 

As a first step in following up the public health 

assessment recommendation, ATSDR published a study in 1998 

which evaluated potential maternal exposure to drinkingwater contaminants on base and preterm birth, small for 

gestational age, and mean birth-weight deficit. Only 

available databases were used, such as electronic birth 

certificates, which were available beginning in 1968, and 

base family-housing records. 

There was insufficient data available for the 1998 

study to evaluate fetal deaths. The study did find an 

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 

elevated risk for SGA, small for gestational age, only 

among male infants exposed to Hadnot Point water, which 

was primarily contaminated with TCE. And the study also 

found an elevated risk for SGA among infants born to 

mothers who were greater than 35 years of age and mothers 

with two or more prior fetal losses who were exposed to 

Tarawa Terrace water, which is primarily contaminated with 

PCE. 

Because the 1998 study could not evaluate birth 

defects or childhood cancers, the current study will look 

at these outcomes, using a case control approach. It is a 

multistep process, and the first step involved a review of 

the scientific literature to identify specific birth 

defects and childhood cancers that were associated with 

drinking water contaminated with VOCs. 

Next slide, please. 

And this slide shows the outcome selected for further 

study based mainly on evidence from the epi studies of 

VOC-contaminated drinking water. 

 The second step in this process was to conduct a 

telephone survey to identify the potential cases of the 

selected birth defects and childhood cancers occurring to 

mothers who were pregnant at any time during their 

pregnancy and living at Camp Lejeune during 1968 to 1985. 

And the survey needed to address the questions shown here. 

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 

Can you go back for a second. Okay. 

And as part of the telephone survey, ATSDR surveyed 

parents of 12,598 children. This is an overall 

participation rate of approximately 74 to 80 percent. And 

the survey identified sufficient numbers of neural tube 

defects, oral clefts, and childhood cancers. 106 cases 

were reported, including 35 neural tube defects, 42 oral 

cleft defects, and 29 childhood cancers. And the 

childhood cancers include leukemia and non-Hodgkin's 

lymphoma. 

Next slide, please. 

The third step is to verify the diagnoses of the 

reported cases. To date, 24 reported cases have been 

confirmed as not having the condition of interest or being 

ineligible or refused. That leaves us with 82 children 

with pending or confirmed conditions. And by pending, I 

mean we are still looking for evidence to verify they have 

their condition. That includes, for the neural tube 

defects, 15 confirmed as having that condition. Thirteen 

are still pending. For the oral clefts, 20 confirmed as 

having that condition and 16 still pending. And for the 

childhood cancers, 14 confirmed as having that condition 

and four still pending. 

The study will include 818 controls, who were sampled 

from the original survey population. This is a ratio of 

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 

about ten controls to cases. Interviews will begin in the 

spring and continue through the summer of this year. And 

they will be administered to parents of the cases and 

controls to obtain information on maternal waterconsumption habits, residential history, and parental risk 

factors. We anticipate a 90 percent participation rate 

based on previous contact with this population and the 

interest that they've shown in our work. 

An important part of the current epi study is the 

water-modeling component. There's a lack of historical 

contaminant-specific data at Camp Lejeune. To provide a 

quantitative estimate of exposure, a historicalreconstruction approach is needed, consisting of modeling 

the groundwater flow and present-day distribution systems 

at Camp Lejeune and extrapolating backwards in time. The 

water-modeling component needs to address the following 

questions shown on this slide. 

Next slide. Oh, go back. Can you go back, please. 

DR. KONIKOW: Do you define "exposure" as just being 

the presence or absence of a contaminant, or are you 

interested in knowing the concentration of the 

contaminant? 

DR. RUCKART: We would like to know the 

concentration, and our hope would be to group them into 

some kind of high, medium, low exposure. But it's going 

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 

to be dependent on what is available. That's our ultimate 

goal. 

And the goals of the water-modeling component are to 

determine when the contamination arrived at the wells and 

the spatial and temporal distribution of the contaminants 

by housing location. And I'd like to conclude with the 

study time line. 

Are there any questions? We'll be here throughout 

the panel if things should come up. 

DR. JOHNSON: Could you go back, please, to the 

couple of slides previous; one more; stop. Thank you. 

No; the one that says "Current ATSDR Epi Study; that one; 

try again; stop. Thank you. 

My question, I guess, is to Mr. Maslia. Are these 

questions to be addressed in the water-modeling component 

part of what has been put before this panel? Or are these 

questions that are, maybe, new? 

MR. MASLIA: Part of the -- some of the questions are 

to be addressed by this panel. We've -- you want me to 

speak into the microphone, I guess. Let me just come over 

here and sit down. 

Some of the questions have been put forth in the 

discussion, for example, at Tarawa Terrace where the 

source is located, the strength of the contaminant source. 

Others, for example, like at the Hadnot Point, we 

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 

obviously have not addressed that issue at this point in 

time. And that's an issue for us to discuss and to 

address, both with information that we may present or 

elucidate to the panel now in some of the complexities at 

Hadnot Point, as opposed to Tarawa Terrace. 

Which chemical compounds were supplied? Again, at 

Tarawa Terrace, it is our intention -- and the data that 

we have presented has at this point indicated that PCE, 

PERC, is the primary contaminant, and that's what the 

modeling to date has been done on. We have not looked at 

modeling-degradation products, say, TCE to DCE and TCE. 

Hadnot Point, again, presents a much more complex 

issue because, as Perri has alluded to, it's primarily 

TCE, but there was underground-storage tanks as well. And 

we just have not -- I'll get into -- actually, when I give 

an overview of the water-modeling activities as to our 

rationale for going in one direction right now. But we 

have not addressed that issue. 

How was the contaminated water distributed is a main 

focus of our investigation. And we start out -- our 

approach is to try to understand what's going on today 

simply because of the lack of historical data, and I will 

get into a little bit later on our approach for 

deconstructing the system, if that's the way, actually, we 

proceed. That is, indeed, a required step that we go. 

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 

Lenny, did you have a question? Yes. 

DR. KONIKOW: In terms of the water distribution and 

the goals of that modeling, are you aiming to actually get 

exposure down to the household level? 

MR. MASLIA: We're aiming to get it down to the 

street level. Now, at Camp Lejeune, it so happens -- and 

we'll get into this -- the distribution is built such that 

it's a looped system so that each house is serviced by a 

pipe, as opposed to, say, an area like Dekalb County or 

even Toms River, where maybe there was a 4-inch main 

running down the street and we did not model any of the 

attached or smaller diameter pipes. 

But the way the distribution system is constructed at 

Toms -- I mean, at Camp Lejeune, you really have a 2-inch 

pipe going from the street to the house. So in essence, 

by default, you've got houses attached or implied in your 

distribution-system modeling. 

However, I think it's important also to tell the 

panel as well as the public is -- as with other 

contamination sites that we have looked at, we are 

actually blinded to the cases and controls at the site. 

ATSDR people modeling the groundwater and distribution 

system, we haven't been provided nor are we asking for any 

specific information as to who resides, who's included in 

the cases and controls so that it is our approach that any 

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 

models that we develop or any analyses -- let's make it 

more general -- should be robust enough that if you say 

you want Location XYZ, you should have as much confidence 

in the results that we give you for Location XYZ as 

Location ABC. And that is our approach, but we are 

blinded. So hopefully, that's addressed your question. 

DR. BOVE: I just want to say one more thing that one 

of the questions earlier was: How are we going to 

categorize exposure? And as it was done in Toms River and 

Woburn, where they just focused on the percent of the 

water coming from a contaminated well during a month and 

then averaging over that for the exposure window, we'll be 

doing something like that. They had three categories in 

the Toms River study. Woburn was ever-never, and then 

they did have three categories, again, of exposure, the 

high one being the upper tenth percentile, if I remember 

right. 

But the numbers get small when you start doing that. 

And I have some tables, and we can discuss the impacts of 

exposure misclassification bias and some of that during 

the panel discussion at some point during the day, if you 

want. 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes. 

DR. WALSKI: I think just to put things in 

perspective, you said there were about 80-some cases of 

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 

illnesses that are -- were determined in the study group. 

About what would the number of illnesses be out of the -- 

like, an average population? Would it be, like, many 

times above what we would expect? Or is it only 

marginally, or what's the perspective? 

DR. BOVE: Well, part of the problem here is the way 

we had to ascertain cases. Ideally, you would like to 

have a cancer registry, or you would like to do your case 

ascertainments through hospital records. We had to do it 

through a survey. So this is not the most optimal way, 

but it was the only way to do ascertainment of cases. 

That being said -- and all the comparison data is based on 

medical records data or cancer registries, like the Sierra 

Cancer Registry, or birth defect registries, like the one 

in Atlanta. 

It's hard to really compare the two. But if you 

want, these are -- what we've -- both the reported 

positive ones that we verified and the ones we're still 

working on, if you combine those two, we have slight 

elevations here in the -- I would say the realm of two 

times what we might expect for some of the end points. 

But, again, there are problems with that. Not 

everybody was exposed at Camp Lejeune either. And the way 

we ascertained them was different than the databases we 

would compare them to. 

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 

DR. JOHNSON: Other questions? Dr. Singh. 

DR. SINGH: So here the assumption was that the 

increase was attributed to the water contamination? 

DR. BOVE: No. We didn't want to do that. We wanted 

to use the survey to ascertain cases and do the study with 

the modeling that Morris -- and you're going to be 

commenting on. We did not want to say straight off 

whether the -- it was an excess, number one, because we 

wanted to verify the cases. At the time of the survey, 

it's only self-reporting -- or parent-reported cases. And 

so we wanted to verify those cases. 

And secondly, because of all the problems with the 

water information, new information we've been getting over 

the -- well, not so new actually, over the last few years 

that things we thought we knew about the water system, 

information we got about the water system was not quite 

correct and that, in fact, the study that Perri mentioned 

that we completed in '98 probably needs to be revisited. 

Most definitely, it needs to be revisited because 

assumptions made in that based on that information at the 

time, but we find it was incorrect. So we didn't want to 

do anything until the modeling was done, and we -- and 

base whatever we do on better information. 

DR. CLARK: Are we going to have a chance to look at 

other compounding effects? 

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 

DR. BOVE: We -- well, as Perri pointed out, we're 

doing an interview of the cases and controls. That's one 

of the nice things about doing a case-control sample. You 

have a small enough group so you can do extensive 

interviewing and go over all the other risk factors that 

are either suspected or known for these outcomes. 

DR. JOHNSON: Do the members know the essentials of a 

case-control epi study? Are you-all real comfortable with 

that? 

DR. BOVE: Well, we can -- we -- again, that's 

something we can go into in-depth at any point during the 

day. 

DR. JOHNSON: Could you give us about two minutes 

now? 

DR. BOVE: Okay; two minutes? Okay. Well, I mean, 

you have -- we're not sure how many pregnancies occurred 

at the base between 1968 and '85 because many were 

transferred. We had to guesstimate that about a third of 

the people who were pregnant there migrated off-site -- 

transferred basically off-site before they delivered. So 

we knew how many births on base. That was about 12,400 

and some. And we assumed another 3,000 or so were 

transferred off base and delivered elsewhere, so roughly 

around 16,000. 

Now, you have 16,000. You can't interview them all; 

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 

right? That would be an incredible undertaking. That's 

one approach. Another approach is to take a random 

sample. But when we have rare diseases, that's not a good 

approach because you take a random sample and may not get 

any of the cases in that random sample of 16,000. So the 

approach you take within a disease that's rare, like this 

situation, is what we call case-control sample. 

DR. JOHNSON: You're speaking of birth defects; 

correct? 

DR. BOVE: We're talking about birth defects. We're 

talking about, in particular, neural tube defects, which 

is spina bifida and anencephaly. We're talking about oral 

clefts, which is cleft lip and cleft pallet. And we're 

talking about childhood leukemia and childhood nonHodgkin's lymphoma. And those are all rare events, those 

diseases that we're focusing on. 

And so the approach has been to gather all the cases 

from that population at Camp Lejeune, keeping in mind that 

the population at Camp Lejeune of births, both born on 

site and born off site, some were exposed; some were not 

exposed; right. That's the question we're going to be 

asking you is hopefully is will the modeling be able to 

tell us with some assurance who's exposed at least and who 

wasn't exposed. If we can get that, that's one step. 

And then, of course, we'd like to have -- be able to 

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 

define it better than that. But that's the first 

consideration. So we have a population here, some of whom 

are exposed, some of whom are not exposed during their 

pregnancy. And we take -- we get all the cases from that 

population, and then we take a random sample of that 

population to give us a control series. And that's the 

case-control series. 

Now, in some methodologies, you sample your control 

series irrespective of whether they were -- what their 

disease status was. That's one approach. A lot -- most 

often, though, you sample the nondisease, those people in 

the population that did not have the case -- the diseases 

you're focusing on. So that's basically what we're 

talking about: a case-control sample, the most effective 

way of doing these kinds of studies. It was also the 

approach taken in Woburn, the approach taken at Toms 

River. 

DR. SINGH: So why do you have some people not 

exposed if they were living on Camp Lejeune? 

DR. BOVE: Well, we're -- see, that's the question. 

We -- in the previous study, we thought that about half of 

the births were unexposed because they were getting water 

from the Holcomb Boulevard system. And at that time, we 

assumed that the Holcomb Boulevard system was clean. 

Okay? So that study, half -- about half the births were 

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 

unexposed. 

Now we're not sure about anything, or at least I'm 

not. I'm waiting to hear from the discussion. There may 

be interconnections between Holcomb and Tarawa Terrace. 

The -- before '73, the people who -- the residences that 

got Holcomb Boulevard water got Hadnot Point before that. 

And so we thought that they -- for some reason, we didn't 

know what their exposure was. We assumed they were 

unexposed. That was a bad assumption probably. 

So we don't know the percent unexposed. I mean, 

that's what the modeling effort's going to have to tell 

us. That's why we have to revisit those previous -- that 

previous study. 

DR. RUCKART: There's another piece about those also 

when during the pregnancy that the mother was exposed. 

And we're hoping to have that information as well if they 

were exposed in the first trimester or later. It depends 

on when they were actually residing at Camp Lejeune. 

DR. JOHNSON: David, you had a question. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: It actually follows on that one, and 

it is: You addressed the issue of the spatial resolution 

desired. What temporal resolution of exposure is desired 

from these studies? 

DR. BOVE: Well, for neural tube defects and oral 

clefts, the window of exposures is the first trimester. 

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 

And actually, for neural tube defects, it's Day 20 to 24, 

roughly. So we're not asking for day. But we are asking 

for a trimester with the idea that, you know, that the 

exposure windows for neural tube defects and oral clefts 

is quite small. Okay. 

Now, childhood leukemia and childhood non-Hodgkin's 

lymphoma, we are not sure. We -- from the studies I've 

seen, the initial cause for the disease appears to be 

prenatal. So again, we're interested in most often -- 

mostly in prenatal exposures for this study as a whole for 

all the outcomes. 

DR. JOHNSON: Other questions? Yes, please. 

DR. UBER: Just to -- I think I know the answer to 

this, but just to clarify. The study is not concerned 

with any fetuses that would not have made it to a live 

birth that might have had a cause from contamination? 

DR. RUCKART: Right; because it's difficult to 

ascertain that. If we could, that would be ideal. But 

it's just not really possible here. 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes. 

MR. MASLIA: Just to help everybody get oriented, I 

think during a subsequent presentation, I've got some maps 

and some slides, so we're all calling the same parts of 

the base the same names and things like that. And we'll 

define that for everybody, so... 

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 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Any more questions to Dr. 

Ruckart or Dr. Bove? I have one last question to PI. 

This isn't a question but a comment. The question will 

follow. It looks like these five questions in the main 

are -- have been in some way put before the panel. Do you 

feel that that's true? I mean, are you okay? 

MR. MASLIA: Absolutely. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. I would -- 

DR. RUCKART: We work together. 

MR. MASLIA: We even talk with each other. 

DR. JOHNSON: Lord, the agency has indeed changed 

since I left (laughter). I'm so glad I'm sitting down. I 

would invite the epi team, starting with this principal 

investigator, to place before this panel at any time 

questions that you feel have not been addressed or have 

not been addressed to your satisfaction because this work 

in terms of the water modeling absolutely has to be vital 

in support of your work. And now is an excellent time to 

get things, you know, you always wanted to ask. Put it in 

front of this group, and you will have profound answers. 

Now my question: You mentioned work that's upcoming 

in the spring of 2005. Has that work begun? 

DR. RUCKART: We are actually traveling up to 

Maryland this weekend to be part of the training for the 

interviewers, and interviews are scheduled to begin Monday 

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 

night or Tuesday morning by the latest. That will be next 

Monday and Tuesday. 

DR. JOHNSON: Do you foresee anything that this panel 

will do over the next two days as having impact for the 

spring work? 

DR. RUCKART: I don't believe so. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Well, thank you very much for 

your presentation. Mr. Maslia, a summary of watermodeling activities. 

MR. MASLIA: Let me get the summary of water-modeling 

activities. Actually -- no. Let's go to project staff 

first; yes. Thank you. I've got it. I've got it. 

DR. JOHNSON: And there are handouts here for the 

panel. 

MR. MASLIA: The panel, yes. Some of the handouts 

are copies of this slide, and if any of the slides that we 

show that you would like copies of, please let me know or 

let Ann Walker know, and we'll try to provide those for 

you. 

DR. JOHNSON: Are these available to the public 

outside? 

MR. MASLIA: Some of them are. The ones that contain 

actual model simulation and data are not because they have 

not been cleared by the agency and subject, obviously, to 

panel deliberations. And so those are not available to 

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 

the public. But we do have posters and maps, showing some 

information that everyone's free to look at and peruse, 

and we'll be pointing to. 

Let me officially, I suppose, introduce myself. My 

name's Morris Maslia. I'm a project officer of the 

Exposure Dose Reconstruction Program at ATSDR. And I was 

approached by Dr. Bove and his predecessor to take part in 

the Camp Lejeune epidemiologic study and looking at some 

of the techniques that we used for the Dover Township 

analyses and seeing if those, in fact, could be used or 

something similar to that could be used. 

I've introduced myself. Also from ATSDR is Jason 

Sautner over here. Jason did the bulk of the modeling 

work at Dover Township and had his intentions on doing the 

modeling here. But as things progressed, Jason has really 

helped us developing some of the field approaches and 

field protocols for the tracer tests on the waterdistribution system modeling and setting those up, setting 

up the field type of analyses and data gathering. And so 

he's been more involved in that respect up until this 

point. 

We also have -- we used the Oak Ridge Institute for 

Science and Education to get postgraduate research fellows 

to assist us. Claudia Valenzuela has unfortunately been 

relegated to helping us with logistics on the slide screen 

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 

back there. I don't mean to point the laser at you, 

Claudia. It's like Star Wars. 

But Claudia has really done the lion's share of the 

water-distribution system analyses that were presented in 

the notebooks and also has done a tremendous job in 

investigation in trying to figure out this issue of 

classification of different types of consumption and 

demand. We'll get into that. Obviously, being a military 

reservation, we may not have a simple case of residential, 

urban, industrial-type classifications. 

Also just joining us this past October is Joe Green, 

and Joe's background is in medical geography. And all of 

the nice posters and the spatial analysis work, Joe has 

helped us out. He goes back and forth between the 

distribution-modeling results and the groundwater-modeling 

results, helping us put together and pull different 

aspects of the data. 

And as far as groundwater modeling and fate and 

transport modeling, we have Robert Faye, who is sitting 

over there. And Bob spent -- and I had my notes. It's 

probably on another slide here but -- I believe, 27-1/2 

years in U.S. Geological Survey; 12-1/2 or so, he was the 

regional groundwater specialist for the southeast region 

at USGS. And he has been doing the groundwater -- not 

only groundwater modeling, but the geohydrologic 

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 

framework, culling through the data files for the 

groundwater aspect of the analyses. 

And then finally, we also have Dr. Mustafa Aral, who 

is sitting right at this table. And we have a cooperative 

agreement with the multimedia environmental simulations 

lab at Georgia Tech. They assisted us with our Dover 

Township work and are involved -- I expect to be even more 

involved when we start tackling this issues of uncertainty 

modeling, operational cycles, and things of that nature. 

And finally, not present -- and I'm not sure why Dr. 

Grayman decided that he'd rather be on the beach at St. 

Maarten than here -- but Walter Grayman, whose background 

is in water-distribution system modeling, has been an 

advisor to us, helping plan the tracer tests on the waterdistribution side as well as water-distribution system 

modeling. And as I said, he's an advisor to ATSDR. 

So that is the project team. I would like to just -- 

and we can revisit this, but I was -- in going through 

some of the premeeting comments, which we really do 

appreciate. It helped us focus more on the direction we 

needed to go and some of the answers we're going to try to 

at least provide you in a general sense at this meeting 

and something to work on, obviously, after the meeting. 

But a couple of questions came up with respect to the 

charge on the work effort. Obviously, everyone's admitted 

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 

thus far this is not a small undertaking. And so I put 

together a couple of slides just very quickly, and you 

have -- there's a -- should be a packet. If not, we can 

provide you these in your handout. 

But this slide sort of shows -- the red bar is the 

total work effort, the percent of effort. You see, for 

example, groundwater, we're estimating thus far has taken 

about 35 percent of the total effort. Water-distribution 

system modeling is about 40, primarily because of the 

field and us having to go out in the field and that 

nature. Data discovery -- this is anything from going 

through the Marine Corps base facility that they call "the 

vault" to look through data to other -- finding other 

sources of information. And then communication, whether 

that's preparing reports for this meeting, preparing 

presentations, or ultimately preparing final reports or 

protocols as to what we did. 

And just within each subject I subdivided. For 

example, in groundwater modeling, you've got a data 

discovery component and you've got a data-analysis 

component, which would be both geohydrologic and modeling 

and so forth. 

You can see that in the water-distribution side, 

we've got an extremely driving up until this part is the, 

I believe, that's the data discovery. No. That's the 

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 

spatial analysis. I'm sorry; spatial analysis. And that 

is the cause of the complexity, both present day as well 

as historically, of exactly having documentation of where 

the pipes were, which treatment plants were operating. 

A lot of this information originally was on paper 

copies, and we had to geocode it and all that sort of 

stuff. Even conducting field tests, locating hydrants, 

many, if not most, of the hydrants on base are not 

numbered. And we had to physically send people out there 

to actually locate and two different people locate two 

different hydrants and things of that nature. So that's 

what's driving that. 

The final slide is more of a budgeting in terms of 

staff. If you add up all the red bars, it adds up to 

about four and a half equivalents, full-time equivalents. 

And so within that, again, you can see the present day. 

This refers to the present-day water-distribution system 

modeling. It is really driving the time-consuming and 

manpower-intensive aspect of the project. So that's just 

a very quick overview of our staffing from the watermodeling side. 

And I believe that's all the project staff comments I 

have, unless someone has any specific questions on those. 

If not, I think next on is a summary of water-modeling 

activities. Claudia, if you will -- and I think that's 

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 

number four; number four -- no. It's number five. Yeah, 

yeah; right there. That's it. Okay. 

I'm going to just give a very brief overview of 

modeling activities, so hopefully you get -- if the 

written documentation you were providing was confusing 

enough and voluminous enough to sort of simplify it. And 

you can go on -- I've got it right here. Okay. 

Obviously, we're in coastal North Carolina, and we've 

got some maps here, some aerial photographs. But as Frank 

mentioned, there are actually seven water-distribution 

systems. And historically, there have been eight 

different water-distribution systems at Camp Lejeune. And 

we are actually concentrating the discussion today in our 

charge are the ones down in this area right over here. 

So the ones, for example, at the air base, which is 

over here, and Onslow Beach, while they have and we may 

have information on them, they are not part of the 

analysis that we are undertaking. Basically, Perri 

reported this information; population of active duty, 

100,000; and seven water systems supply groundwater at 

Camp Lejeune. 

Here are the names of the different systems, and as I 

said, we're dealing with the Tarawa Terfrace, Holcomb 

Boulevard, and Hadnot Point systems. And in the next 

slide, what I would like to do -- and we have the posters 

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 

up, that one over there, and I think if you want to move 

the second poster. Okay. 

We have sort of a nomenclature issue. As anybody 

who's done any groundwater investigation or other 

investigations, as you get later and later time away from 

either when the wells were installed or the systems 

operated, names change. 

So this is the nomenclature that we are using for the 

present discussion and for the present-day system. At 

present, there are two operating water-treatment plants. 

Water-treatment plants service areas that we are 

analyzing. And these are the Hadnot Point, which is down 

to the south here. And we're referring to that as the 

Hadnot Point water-treatment plant service area. And then 

there's the Holcomb Boulevard water-treatment plant 

service area, which is this area. 

Basically, there are two sets of shut-off valves 

right along the Wallace Creek here that at present day 

separates the two systems completely. They're shut off. 

In terms of actual water-distribution systems, there are 

three water-distribution systems within the two watertreatment plant service areas. Hadnot -- could you back 

up? Okay. 

Hadnot Point happens to service the Hadnot Point 

water-distribution system area. So it's coincident. The 

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 

treatment plant services the water-distribution system. 

However, in this northern area, the Holcomb Boulevard 

actually services two different distribution systems. One 

is to the northwest here, the Tarawa Terrace waterdistribution system, which presently is combined with 

service to Camp Johnson. 

Historically, there was another treatment plant here, 

which I'll get to in a minute, and then also the 

distribution system at Holcomb Boulevard area. There is 

one pipeline here that, once the water is treated at the 

treatment plant, sends water to an underground reservoir 

at Tarawa Terrace and based on demand and tank levels 

would then distribute water just to the Tarawa Terrace 

area. 

So are there any questions with respect to 

nomenclature that we're going to use for the balance of 

the panel meeting at this point? 

(No audible response) 

MR. MASLIA: I'll get to a very brief chronology. 

We've got some larger boards here. And as Frank said, 

this chronology has been sort of at times chasing a moving 

target. And so it remains sort of changing in flux even 

as we speak. As we get new information or as we get 

conflicting information, we start changing. 

But very briefly, the Hadnot -- this is actually as 

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 

-- I put this together last week, so it's the most current 

that we have. '43, Hadnot Point was the first 

distribution system and first treatment plant on base. 

And then in '51 to '52, the Tarawa Terrace treatment plant 

was constructed. That's about the time that they also 

built the housing complex at Tarawa Terrace. And then at 

'50 -- in '57 was the Montford Point. And the Montford 

Point actually serviced the Camp Johnson, which is the 

northwestern-most part of the distribution system. 

Then we have a big question, which we have not 

resolved to date yet. We cannot get a month or year as to 

when Holcomb Boulevard began operating. They've got a 

picture on the wall that says '73. You know, one of those 

architectural pictures that -- and we do have an accounts 

book that we just received a couple of weeks ago that 

lists when the information is filed into their system. 

That sort of lists '73 as well. However, documentation 

that we have just -- that we've just recently received 

says '71, and that can be a very critical issue. 

So all I can say is I'm at the panel's mercy. That 

is a major issue, and, in fact, I think -- and I hope the 

panel doesn't mind me mentioning names, if you've made 

some comments. But Tom made a comment about putting some 

effort into data discovery. I'll call it that. And that 

still is ongoing and needs to be refined. We're planning 

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 

to do that some more, but we're going to have to obviously 

get detailed into the files to figure that out. So I'll 

just put that up there. We're not sure when in that time 

frame. And obviously, if the epidemiologic study is 

looking at months, that becomes an issue. 

Tarawa Terrace -- when the water-treatment plant was 

closed, again, we think March. We think 1987. It started 

back in '85. We just recently obtained some information, 

a report, that I'm asking for some more background on -- 

that I've asked the Marine Corps for some background on 

that was written in '91 that makes a statement in there 

that, "Two years prior," which would be at -- in '89, 

"that Tarawa Terrace" -- and I'm quoting --- "supplied 

water to Holcomb Boulevard." That, again, so -- and 

that's in a consulting report. There may be other 

information as well, but that's some of the issues we're 

still dealing with. 

And finally, in '87, again, we have some 

documentation that says all the remaining wells were 

closed. So we -- the issue is we are still in the midst 

of this data discovery and coming up with a finalized or a 

time line that, if you want to say, is cast in concrete or 

stone that's fixed. We're not satisfied with some of the 

components of the time line at this time. Okay. 

Goals and objectives of the modeling. These were the 

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 

goals discussed with the epidemiologists when we first met 

as to what they needed for the epidemiologic study; 

arrival of contaminants at the well. And obviously, that 

also means concentration values or ranges, not just when 

they first arrived at the wells. 

From the distribution side, the distribution of 

contaminants by housing location. We've sort of -- and 

housing location is taken to mean, like, Tarawa Terrace, 

Holcomb Boulevard; not necessarily House, you know, 2103. 

That's my interpretation, but as I said, the piping-system 

network does go down to the street level. 

And it's always been our intent to address 

uncertainties. We understand their impact and the impact 

they can have, especially on interpreting results from the 

epidemiologic point of view and what sort of confidence. 

Just as an example, when we were doing our Dover Township 

work, the epidemiologist came back to us and asked, "Well, 

now that you've given us that House A receives 10 percent 

of the water, does that mean it's 10 percent plus or minus 

50 percent, or is it 10 percent plus or minus 2 or 3 

percent?" We had -- I don't know if it's luxury or 

opportunity there to tell them, "No. It's 10 percent plus 

or minus about 3 to 4 percent." We were able to reduce 

that out by running different scenarios for them. 

Whether that proves -- or whether we have the ability 

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 

to do that here based on data, we're still looking into 

it. That's what we're looking for some of the input from 

this panel to tell us. And so -- and we've got the 

uncertainties on all sides: the groundwater analyses as 

well as the distribution side. 

So to finish up, again, and this, I suppose, is more 

so for our public that's here but to go over a generalized 

approach. We've got our site, Camp Lejeune, here. And on 

the groundwater side, we're using the Modflow or one of 

its derivatives, which will become eventually coupled with 

a fate and transport analysis. 

You have only been provided -- the panel -- with an 

advective part up until this point in time. But it's been 

our intent all along to go to the full-blown look at the 

dispersive issues as well and then, on the distribution 

side, an EPANET-type or its equivalent too. Again, we've 

used EPANET and its equivalent for our present-day 

analyses; actually to help us, guide us, in preparing some 

of the field studies. 

And I believe that's all on the overview of the -- of 

the types of models. One point I wanted to make on the 

report that the panelists were given -- I'm calling it a 

report, and that's probably a misnomer. It's more 

probably a collection of data collection efforts and some 

background information. 

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 

And if we -- or if I implied that it was intended as 

a final or finished product, that was probably a 

miscommunication on my part. It was really meant to be a 

working document, hopefully presented in some intelligent 

form, that you could make sense out of it. So this is not 

an intent for you necessarily to review that document as a 

report but as the data contained in it. 

And I believe that's it for the overview of the 

modeling. At this point, Dr. Johnson, we've got two 

options. I've got a brief overview on the groundwater and 

then leading into detailed discussions and analyses with 

Bob Faye. Or we had prepared some general responses to 

some of the premeeting comments. I didn't know if that 

was the opportunity -- if this was when you wanted me to 

just give an overview of those. 

DR. JOHNSON: No. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. 

DR. JOHNSON: I think it is, though, the time and 

opportunity to ask questions on what we've heard thus far. 

Yes. 

DR. UBER: Morris, this might not be the best time to 

ask this question. So I don't -- I cannot speak myself 

authoritatively at all on chemical or biological processes 

affecting any of these contaminants, and so this question 

also maybe then goes to some of the panelists who can. 

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 

But do you know: Right now, do any of those potential 

chemical biological processes act in the distribution 

system? And if so, are their kinetics effective over 

residence time scales that are typical of distribution 

systems? 

MR. MASLIA: I have to plead ignorance to that. I 

don't know if that's a question that Frank -- as far as 

biologic processes with respect to the epi part of things. 

I know that question came in other studies of biologic 

plausibility, the fact that you can make an association, 

say, between contamination of a water resource and an 

apparent disease. Is there, in fact, a biologic 

plausibility for that? 

DR. BOVE: Oh, I didn't know -- I thought the 

question was more on processes. 

MR. MASLIA: Oh, was it? Okay. I think I can -- 

DR. BOVE: Yeah; because I can answer that one. 

DR. UBER: I think I can -- I was probably too wordy. 

I just want -- I'm basically asking: Does the team feel 

right now that for purposes of transport in the 

distribution system that they can model these contaminants 

as tracers? 

MR. MASLIA: Based on what we've seen with the 

responses to the present-day system -- and that's all we 

have right now -- the answer is yes. In fact, we've made 

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 

some, I think, some interesting, if not eye-opening, 

observations based on how the present-day system is 

operating. And from what we have been told to date, that 

is a typical operation over the last 20 or 30 years with, 

of course, obviously, changes in hydraulic and 

infrastructure, removing treatment plants, starting up the 

Holcomb Boulevard treatment plant, things of that nature. 

But based on the preliminary tests that we've done to 

date, we have been able to, I believe, do some acceptable 

-- not maybe final, but acceptable model simulations. 

And, in fact, it was the model simulations that led us -- 

and we'll get into this probably later this afternoon and 

tomorrow -- that led us to suggest to the utilities' folks 

at Lejeune that they, in fact, perhaps had some closed 

valves while we were doing it, relying on some -- and it 

turned out that that was correct. 

So I believe -- to answer your question in a short 

manner, I believe the models will -- based on what we've 

seen to date will provide us the ability to provide some 

answers on that. As far as the level of variability or 

uncertainty, I think that's where we need to get back with 

the epidemiologists and really sit down and see what level 

they're willing to accept or can accept for their 

analysis. And that, I can't answer you at this point in 

time. 

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 

DR. UBER: Oh, okay. 

 DR. WALSKI: To give you a little answer to your 

question, Jim, on the processes, most of the things that 

happen to the VOCs in pipes don't really -- I mean, 

there's not much that can happen to them. I mean, in 

pipes, the only place where you could have much of a 

process affecting them is usually in tanks where you have 

a free water surface and they can volatize. 

But when Ben and I did the work in 

Phoenix/Scottsdale, we looked at that, then went back to 

Henry's Law and looked at stuff like that. And we did -- 

you know, since you don't really -- it's hard to measure 

these kind of things, and there's not a lot of literature 

on Henry's Law in a perfectly still tank. Usually, if 

it's for stripping towers and stuff like that, you have a 

lot of literature data. 

But going back and trying to reconstruct this, we 

estimated 97 percent of what went into a tank came out. 

Very little is really lost through the surface, and that's 

about the only process that you lose VOCs is through the 

surface of the tank. 

So basically, assuming that it's -- what goes in the 

system goes to the tap is probably, you know, a reasonable 

assumption if there's not processes occurring. At least, 

we couldn't figure out any processes that would knock down 

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 

the concentration significantly. 

DR. POMMERENK: Yeah. I have some supporting 

information on that. Because that question was asked by 

Camp Lejeune to us as their consultants, we looked into 

literature and tried to come up with a rough estimate of 

would there be any removal within the treatment plant. 

And since, you know, we had to review all of the drawings 

of the existing plants, we knew the surface areas that are 

available. We made certain assumptions: You know, is the 

water quiescent in that tank, or, you know, is there any 

agitation anywhere? 

In all the tanks that we looked in -- and some of the 

tanks are newer. There's more surface area available 

today than there used to be early in the seventies. But 

removal due to volatization was negligible. I mean, it 

was less than a tenth of percent. The only location where 

there would be some removal was in the spiractors that 

were operated in all these Hadnot Point, Holcomb 

Boulevard, and Tarawa Terrace plants. 

And even there, there was a certain uncertainty, 

depending on they had conditions downstream you would get 

some agitation at the effluent pipe. So although we said 

it's probably negligible, and I agree with Tom's number 

here. At 90 percent, what's going in is coming out on the 

other end. 

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 

One thing that had to be -- we were not able to 

address. I believe the Hadnot Point plant used to have a 

carbon dioxide contact basin. We could not find out when 

this contact basin was operated because, obviously, that 

process would agitate the water significantly. It was 

also open to the atmosphere. It was not in a closed 

building. And there could have been some significant 

removal, but we were not able to be certain when this -- 

they ceased the operation of that unit at Hadnot Point a 

long time ago. And even some of the older operators that 

we talked to were not able to tell us when that was. But, 

again, you know, what Tom said is probably accurate, that 

you can probably use PCE and TCE as a tracer distribution 

system. 

DR. WALSKI: Which leads to the question, though, on 

the measurements we have. We have only a handful of 

measurements of VOCs in the system. Were these taken 

before treatment or after treatment? When were they 

taken? 

MR. MASLIA: There are some -- from the health 

assessment, there's some tap samples. So that obviously 

would be after treatment. We've got some groundwater 

wells with PCE and PCE measurements, so that's obviously 

before treatment. 

DR. CLARK: But there's a third class that's on the 

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 

schedule that says water-distribution system. 

DR. JOHNSON: Step up to the microphone, please. 

DR. CLARK: I'm sorry. The time line also has waterdistribution systems from neither tap nor well. And 

that's what, I think, the question is. 

MR. MASLIA: It's somewhere -- tap is at the 

household. 

DR. CLARK: No. Let me quote from it. It says, 

"water-distribution system tested." 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

DR. CLARK: Was that -- at which side of the 

distribution system? I mean, at the tap? 

MR. MASLIA: Oh, I see what you're saying. 

MR. FAYE: I think that was on the treatment side. 

COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. I can't hear you. 

MR. FAYE: I believe it was on the treatment side. 

DR. CLARK: Post-treatment. 

MR. MASLIA: Post-treatment; post-treatment side. 

DR. POMMERENK: Can I add to that? Thank you. As 

far as I'm aware of -- and you, Morris, you probably 

remember that too. The contamination of the drinking 

water was first discovered -- there was -- a portion of it 

was discovered in the early eighties when the -- after the 

promulgation of the THM rule, the trihalomethane rule. So 

these samples were taken in the distributions system at 

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 

consumers' taps, and I think in the course of the 

analysis, the laboratory that analyzed had problems 

resolving the peaks from, you know, from the THM compounds 

because I believe TCE or PCE was masking those other peaks 

on their chromatograms. So these early data may have been 

actually tap samples in the distribution system. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. We've actually got documents with 

the lab notation on there, specifically addressing that 

particular issue. 

DR. JOHNSON: I have a question. With regard to the 

models, you indicated, I think, that they're both EPA 

models? 

MR. MASLIA: No. No, sir. Modflow was originally 

developed in the middle to late eighties -- correct me, 

Lenny, if I'm wrong -- by the U.S. Geological Survey. 

It's a public-domain model. And now, of course, there are 

any number of proprietary codes that use it as the engine, 

more or less, with the data sets. Basically, if they say 

they're Modflow compatible, then you can run them with a 

plain vanilla code, which is publicly available from the 

USGS Web site, and we have done that. 

EPANET is the same issue. That was developed by -- 

can I say this? -- your shop, Bob Clark's shop, when he 

was at EPA, by Lou Rossman. We've worked with it from 

Dover Township days, and again, a lot of the commercial 

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 

codes for the water-distribution models use the EPANET 

engine. We are actually using both a commercial or 

proprietary code and EPANET. Some of the commercial 

codes, as they do have nicer bells and whistles on the 

front-end to make data input a little easier and things 

like that. So there are two publicly available model 

codes that have been vigorously and publicly tested. 

DR. JOHNSON: What do we know about their validity? 

MR. MASLIA: There -- we're convinced of their 

validity. There's documentation. In fact, EPA has a 

documentation ad for specific problems to test for 

Modflow. And that's, again, available on the EPA Web 

site, that if you want to -- if you make a modification, 

if you will -- we have not made any modifications to the 

models, by the way. 

But if you do and you want to test its verification 

or validity, then you can run those sets of problems. 

EPANET 2 obviously is a second-generation version of EPA, 

and it has gone through robust testing. And most of the 

commercial codes, again, will carry the -- EPANET has a 

set of problems that you can test your adaptation of it 

against those benchmark -- if you want to call it those 

benchmark problems. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. Why don't you 

continue with the other material, please. 

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. MASLIA: Okay. Thank you. At this point, what I 

want to do is give a very brief overview, more of a 

generalized overview, of this morning's -- the rest of 

this morning's session will be on groundwater. And then 

throw it over to Bob Faye to really address step-by-step 

technical issues. 

So, Claudia, if you'll get the groundwater slide -- 

groundwater overview. Okay. There you go. Is that the 

first slide? No. I need -- back up one. Okay; one more. 

Okay. I've probably got them X'd out. Okay. I'll make 

it short and sweet then. Okay. Okay. There you go. 

Sources of contamination, we've -- as we spoke about 

Hadnot Point being the first one leaking undergroundstorage tanks and spills and other waste disposal and then 

Tarawa Terrace, which is the dry-cleaning source. And 

that's really why in discussions with Bob Faye and myself 

and with some input from the epidemiologic side is where 

should we attack first. 

In other words, we were more sure or more positive of 

Tarawa Terrace being as close to a single source as 

possible, an identifiable source. And so we decided from 

a project-management standpoint as well as initial results 

to show the applicability of what we were doing to go 

after Tarawa Terrace. So -- and that just gives you the 

dates. And the Well 26, which you'll probably hear a lot 

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 

about and it is on our time chronology, is about 900 feet 

from the dry cleaners. And that was the well -- one of 

the wells that became contaminated at Tarawa Terrace. 

And so the approach to modeling groundwater was to 

assess Tarawa Terrace as a single source and a known 

location, known location for the source and to develop a 

geohydrologic framework. There have been some previous 

work done -- Bob Faye will get into the details of that -- 

both from the U.S. Geological Survey in the middle to late 

eighties being on site at Camp Lejeune as well as some 

private consulting firms doing some work; construct the 

three-dimensional Modflow model; calibrate the model for 

study state or predevelopment; and then look at transient 

conditions; and then conduct fate and transport. As of 

today, we have done all but -- with Tarawa Terrace --

except the fate part. We've done the advective transport. 

And that's really all -- I just wanted to give a 

complete overview from the groundwater side to any members 

of the public who are here or who want to see the big 

picture. So that's the big picture on the groundwater 

side. And at this point, again, I'd like to introduce Bob 

Faye, who will give you the details of our groundwatermodeling analyses. 

DR. JOHNSON: Any questions to Mr. Maslia with regard 

to the groundwater presentation? 

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 

DR. POMMERENK: I have one question. 

MR. MASLIA: Oh, sure. 

DR. POMMERENK: Morris, don't quote me on this. I 

don't remember quite -- in one of the public health 

assessments, I seem to remember there was another 

dry-cleaning business to the east of ABC. Can you just 

briefly state why this is not included in your talk? 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. Is this on? Peter, I can address 

that. The initial study that was done in 1985 by Shiver, 

I think it's called Globa-something or other -- 

MR. ENSMINGER: Globarama. 

MR. FAYE: Globarama; right; Globarama Dry Cleaning. 

The initial study that was done by NCDEM by Shiver in 

1985, he looked at that -- at that facility in detail and 

decided that not only did their operations -- it was a 

closed operation, apparently, where they completely 

recycled their waste and handled their waste in a 

responsible way by hiring a waste management -- a concern 

to move the waste away from the site. 

Also, there were groundwater samples taken near the 

site, as I recall, and it showed that there was no real 

opportunity at that site for groundwater contamination. 

For example, I think the observation well that they 

drilled right in front of the ABC facility, the 

concentration in September of '85 was about 12,000 

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 

micrograms per liter of PCE. And the contamination at the 

Globarama facility was minimal, was no comparison, if any. 

Did that answer your question? 

DR. POMMERENK: Yes. 

MR. FAYE: Was that -- okay. And that has been 

described and discussed in detail, not only in Shivers' 

report, but also in the EPA Operable Unit 1 and Operable 

Unit 2 reports that Weston -- 

DR. POMMERENK: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: -- the Weston folks put together back in 

the early nineties. 

DR. POMMERENK: Thank you. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Any other questions? 

MR. FAYE: Okay. My name is Bob Faye. I'm a 

contract employee with the Eastern Research Group. And as 

Morris said, my responsibilities for the most part have 

been to construct and calibrate the groundwater-flow model 

to date. 

Dr. Johnson, am I allowed to suggest that if the 

panel members have questions that they could just freely 

interrupt me at any time? 

DR. JOHNSON: Oh, absolutely. 

MR. FAYE: Okay; great. Please do. 

DR. JOHNSON: About how long is your presentation? 

MR. FAYE: I think probably -- well, depending on 

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 

questions, to complete the framework and the contaminant 

description as well as the flow-model description, 

probably on the order of 90 minutes or so. 

COURT REPORTER: I'm going to need to take a computer 

break before then. 

DR. JOHNSON: 90 minutes? 

MR. FAYE: 90; as in 80, 90, 100. 

DR. JOHNSON: Morris, we have a 10:30 panel 

discussion and answers to questions. This appears -- a 

90-minute presentation would appear to be a serious 

overlap. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. Part of the answer to the question 

is we were going to direct feedback. 

COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Please get a microphone. 

MR. MASLIA: Our intent was, I guess, with direct 

feedback during Bob's presentation, to start addressing 

some of those questions and perhaps hopefully -- not 

eliminate them, but have some discussion on specific -- 

those specific questions. Unless -- and the other 

suggestion -- not that that shortens the length, but I 

didn't know if you wanted to take the 15-minute break now 

and go through the entire presentation and go forth, 

rather than breaking it up for the scheduled break. 

DR. JOHNSON: What does the panel wish to do? Take a 

break now? 

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 

 (Audible responses) 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. We'll take about a 15-minute 

break and -- 

MR. FAYE: How do we resolve this, Dr. Johnson? Do 

you want me to just describe the groundwater-modeling 

effort? What does the panel -- well, I'm happy to 

accommodate whatever the wishes are or try to accommodate. 

DR. JOHNSON: What I heard Mr. Maslia say that the 

idea here is to have the panel address some of the, what I 

call, the eight questions that the agency has put forth on 

groundwater and to try to integrate those into your 

presentation. And that leads to them asking questions 

during your presentation, and that seems to me to be quite 

a good process. So does that answer your question? 

MR. FAYE: Right. Well, I'll just -- then I'll just 

continue with Plan A, and if somewhere in the interim we 

need to switch, we'll go to Plan B and Plan C. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. I will say that 11:45 we're out 

of here as a stampede toward the lunch. So why don't we 

take a 15-minute break? Be back at 10:30, please. 

(Whereupon, a recess of approximately 17 minutes was 

taken.) 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Let's resume. 

Let me suggest to the panel that you ask questions 

during Mr. Faye's presentation, and I think it would be 

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 

useful if you could relate some of your questions to the 

questions that have been provided by ATSDR that pertain to 

groundwater. And specifically, these are some eight 

questions that were provided to you in advance. 

I know you also provided premeeting comments, and at 

some point, Mr. Maslia is going to provide kind of an 

overarching response to that. But feel free to blend in 

your premeeting questions and comments during the 

presentation here by Mr. Faye. 

We will continue the groundwater discussion after 

lunch to some degree, to the point where we feel satisfied 

with it. And if we finish a bit early, then I'm going to 

push up the water-distribution systems questions to later 

in the day. 

So I need, also, as a matter of courtesy and respect 

to introduce Dr. LaBolle. Would you introduce yourself, 

your affiliation, and I asked each of the other panelists 

to give kind of an initial reaction to the materials that 

you received. 

DR. LABOLLE: Yes. I'm Dr. LaBolle from University 

of California, Davis, department of hydrologic sciences. 

And my initial reaction: I was quite pleased with the 

level of detail and work that's being done with the 

distribution system. My expertise is in groundwater, but 

I have some experience with distribution-system modeling, 

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 

in particular, models that are similar in construction 

with this groundwater linkage to the distribution-system 

model with the fate and transport involved as well. 

And my greater concern is with the variability and 

uncertainty in the groundwater system, and I'll be posing 

some questions with regards to that. 

DR. JOHNSON: We look forward to those questions. 

DR. LABOLLE: Thank you. 

DR. JOHNSON: And welcome to the panel. Okay. 

MR. FAYE: You ready? 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes. 

MR. FAYE: Okay. Just to start out, I want to 

clarify one thing. You may hear me -- and I know in my -- 

in my papers that I wrote for the document, I use the term 

"Montford Point," but that's equivalent to Morris' Camp 

Johnson. Okay? So if I say -- if I slip and say 

"Montford Point," just think Camp Johnson. 

The rest of the areas, he's already talked 

about: Tarawa Terrace area and the Holcomb Boulevard area. 

And those are the three areas that feature in the 

framework discussion. The Tarawa Terrace area features 

exclusively in the model discussion and in the description 

of contamination. 

The purpose of the framework was to describe and 

quantify the geometry, hydraulic characteristics, and 

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 

potentiometric levels of the aquifers and confining units 

at Tarawa Terrace and vicinity at a scale and level of 

detail suitable for application to groundwater flow and 

contaminant fate and transport models. 

As far as data are concerned, these -- this is 

inclusive of the Camp Johnson area, Tarawa Terrace area, 

and the Holcomb Boulevard area. Elogs, that stands for 

electric logs. We have a -- we have a poster with the -- 

with several examples of electric logs for your benefit. 

There's two parts to an electric log: the resistivity 

side, the spontaneous potential side. Both are important 

and useful in terms of defining the various layers that we 

-- that we're dealing with in terms of the framework. 

There were 100 boring logs that were available to us 

from a variety of sources. There were -- there are two 

reports that address -- or three reports, actually, that 

address the contamination relative to ABC One-Hour 

Cleaners. There were -- and then -- many, many boring 

logs associated with those reports. There's also a large 

number of boring logs associated with RI/FS investigations 

that are ongoing in the Tarawa Terrace area. 

Claudia, could you move back to the previous slide; 

and the next one, please. 

These boring logs, unfortunately, are not spatially 

well distributed in the study area. The boring logs 

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 

almost exclusively refer to -- I'm sorry, almost 

exclusively refer to RI/FS studies that are ongoing in 

this very southern part of Tarawa Terrace and, of course, 

in this northern area, just north and south of Lejeune 

Boulevard, between ABC One-Hour Cleaners and Supply Wells 

TT-26 and TT-25. And we'll be talking about those in just 

a second. 

That's a picture of a typical Elog that we have to 

deal with. The spontaneous potential curve, which is the 

left-hand -- the left-hand curve, is not very useful at 

Camp Lejeune because it's a -- it's, more or less, an 

industrial area. You've got a lot of ground currents, a 

lot of current loss in the subsurface, which causes 

reversals of the spontaneous potential curve. 

Also, you have cycling going on; 60 cycles per second 

in the subsurface. You have bleeding out of the -- out of 

the electrical conduits that are buried, which also 

confuse the resistivity side. But for the most part, all 

of these analyses were based on areas or zones of low and 

high resistivity and not related back to the spontaneous 

potential. 

This is typical of a boring log, one of the hundred. 

I think this extends to a depth of about 20 feet or less. 

Just a couple of points: This is the detail. These are 

mostly logs from augering, hollow-stem augering. So you 

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 

have a lot of smearing in the lithologic descriptions 

going on, probably plus or minus half of a logger stem, 

which is typically 5 feet. So any of these depths that 

you identify as perhaps a top of an aquifer or a top of a 

confining unit have to be identified in that context, that 

we're looking at something that might be accurate to only 

within plus or minus several feet. 

A number of the boring logs were created using splitspoon samples at different intervals. Those, of course, 

are accurate to the identified depth, and they're very 

accurate. Many of the logs -- many of the boring logs in 

the Tarawa Terrace area, the northern part of Tarawa 

Terrace area, the ABC Cleaners' area, identified a feature 

called "running sands." And this -- this was -- shows 

universally as the top of the Tarawa Terrace or the -- top 

of the upper Castle Hayne aquifer. And I can tell you -- 

I can explain the rationale for that at some time later. 

This is typical of the drillers' logs that we had 

available to us. In fact, that's quite a good one 

compared to many. That's the kind of detail that we 

looked at; the lithologic descriptions. Most of the time, 

I use the drillers' logs just to identify the occurrence 

of what was called limestone or Copena. 

There was a major, major problem in locating 

accurately the various points of well-data collection, of 

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 

monitoring wells, particularly for the many RI/FS studies 

that were -- that were conducted there relative ABC 

Cleaners and these other places. That was the 100 boring 

logs that we -- that I discussed. 

Virtually, the reports did not -- we used the state 

plain coordinate system for North Carolina in 1983, 

9-AD -- NAD. Virtually, none of the reports use that 

system, so we had to convert the coordinates that were 

available to us. Many of the coordinates in the report -- 

in some of the reports were not correct. They were -- 

even on their own system -- whatever arbitrary system they 

devised. 

So basically, what we did was just go back to the 

old-fashioned way of measuring distances on the maps that 

were provided. And we were able to identify -- you'll see 

this -- the little building there, TT-47. We would take 

intersections of roads or identified buildings or whatever 

and use that as the -- we would find the state plain 

coordinates for those places and then extrapolate those 

coordinates to the rest of the map, basically just using 

hand measurements. So you need to keep that in mind as 

well as you think about the accuracy of the location data. 

Finally, the end product of the geohydrologic 

framework analysis was the development of 11 or 12 -- 

actually 11 -- 11 units as part of the framework, aquifers 

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 

and confining units. Now, as far as the Tarawa Terrace 

area is concerned, the Brewster Boulevard aquifer and the 

Brewster Boulevard confining unit do not occur at Tarawa 

Terrace except perhaps as a -- just a thin mantle of 

sediments at the surface that are -- that are smeared with 

every -- with everything else and really not of use to be 

identified or not even -- they're unsaturated almost 

always. And they're not dealt with in the Tarawa Terrace 

area. 

I might say two things about the correlation effort. 

The U.S. Geological Survey produced two reports exclusive 

to the Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune back in the late 

eighties. And both of these reports had long, detailed 

sections, using various Elogs and drillers' logs and 

whatever; published these sections. 

They identified a number of units that they would 

track on these sections across almost the whole entire 

base from well to well or Elog to Elog. And essentially, 

below the Tarawa Terrace confining unit, our geohydrologic 

framework conforms very, very closely with a few 

exceptions here and there to the framework analysis that 

was -- that was performed by the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Relative to the Tarawa Terrace aquifer, Tarawa 

Terrace confining unit, and the Brewster Boulevard and 

Brewster Boulevard confining unit, we sort of did that on 

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 

our own. And some of our results at certain places differ 

from the USGS interpretations regarding these two 

aquifers. 

One thing that I -- one thing that I like to do when 

I develop a conceptual framework like this is to constrain 

my results using chronostratigraphic boundaries. That -- 

that would be like actual geologic unit times. 

Unfortunately, for this particular study, that type of 

information was very limited. But I did use the 

distribution of the top of the Castle Hayne formation, 

which I identified with the top of what I call the local 

confining unit. That is the top of the Eocene. And I 

identified also the top of the Beaufort confining unit, 

which the US -- USGS has identified as the top of 

Paleocene. 

And what you do essentially is you look at the -- you 

look at the strike, the distribution of those particular 

units. That helps you to understand the depositional 

cycles that occurred, that you're trying to identify as 

aquifers or confining units. That helps you identify the 

depositional cycles that occurred within that particular 

time frame. 

And that's important because if you're just 

correlating a clay to a clay from Well A to Well B, you 

could just very easily be missing a facies change; 

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 

whereas, if you can -- if you can correlate it as well 

with a chronostratigraphic line, you have some confidence 

that you're looking at a spatially continuous unit in the 

subsurface. And we did that. We did that as well as we 

could with the limited amount of chronostratigraphic 

information that we had. 

And then there's just a whole series of maps that you 

have in your report. This is the top of the upper Castle 

Hayne aquifer. This is one of the time units that I just 

spoke about that I used to sort of keep me on track in 

terms of the spatial distribution; orientation to the 

north, south, east, or west; dip and strike that I would 

apply to units below that and also actually to the River 

Bend unit, which was above it. And there's the thickness 

of the upper Castle Hayne. 

Almost all of these surfaces that I've identified as 

either the top of a confining unit or the top of an 

aquifer are erosional surfaces. Okay? So you would 

expect some degree of irregularity in the -- in the 

altitudes at the top as well in the thickness and 

formation. And I wasn't disappointed at all in that 

regard. 

Another feature of the geohydrologic framework 

analysis was the -- was the computation, the analysis of 

aquifer-test data. We probably had -- between Camp 

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 

Johnson, Tarawa Terrace, and Holcomb Boulevard areas, we 

probably had close to five dozen aquifer tests. Almost 

all of these invariably were single well tests, and almost 

all of the single well tests were step-drawdown tests. 

And what I used -- what I used in for almost all 

these analysis is the public domain U.S. Geological Survey 

aquifer test analyses worksheets, Excel worksheets. And 

the real advantage to those is one -- it has one of the 

best approaches and methods to analyzing step-drawdown 

data, which was the majority of my data. And this is just 

an example of one of the output sheets. 

Now, there was a question -- somebody addressed the 

notion of preferential zones of high permeability within 

the -- within the various units -- within the various 

identified aquifer units. We had no opportunity to do 

that except in the context of the resistivity curves on 

the electric logs. We could identify, perhaps, where 

there may have been a relatively thin lensoidal clay 

within the overall sand that we identified as an aquifer. 

But there was no way to, in my opinion -- and if folks 

here on the panel have some suggestions, I'd be happy to 

hear it. But we did attempt to quantify. That was just 

strictly a -- that would be strictly just a qualitative 

analysis, and frankly, it didn't really occur that much. 

Another feature of the -- of the geohydrologic 

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 

framework analysis was the spatial mapping of the 

horizontal hydraulic-conductivity data that we determined 

from the aquifer-test analyses. That's the -- such as it 

is, that's the spatial distribution of the data for wells 

that were open to the upper and middle Castle Hayne 

aquifers. 

The last thing that we did with respect to the 

geohydrologic-framework analysis was try to -- try to 

create a picture of what the prepumping conditions or 

predevelopment conditions were in the -- in our areas of 

interest, which were Camp Johnson, Tarawa Terrace, and the 

Holcomb Boulevard area. 

And the way we did this was to identify the -- at a 

particular well site -- excuse me, was to identify the 

earliest measurement that we had available to us in terms 

of a water level. And in particular, in the Holcomb 

Boulevard area, we were quite fortunate to have a lot of 

-- quite a good number of measurements that were -- that 

were obtained in the early 1940s when the first supply 

wells were drilled. 

We either chose the earliest measurement at a site, 

or we took the highest measurement at a site. If we were 

fortunate enough in a very few cases to actually have 

multiple measurements, multiple water level measurements, 

at a site, it was -- I could probably count those on one 

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 

hand -- but except for the Tarawa Terrace supply wells. 

But we chose either the highest measurement or the 

earliest measurement, and we just spatially plotted those 

data. And the data almost completely refer to either the 

upper Castle Hayne aquifer or the -- and the middle Castle 

Hayne aquifer. 

But the notion here was just to look at possible 

boundaries that might be indicated as a predevelopment 

condition as well as flow directions. And what we find is 

that -- what we find is, as expected, Northeast Creek is 

an obvious boundary at least as far as these aquifers 

where the water-level information was obtained is 

concerned. And we have flow directions in Tarawa Terrace, 

generally either east or south, toward Northeast Creek. 

And in the Holcomb Boulevard area, we have flow directions 

north, west, and somewhat northwest, toward Northeast 

Creek. 

And what this tells us is that, at least as far as 

those upper four aquifers or so are concerned, Northeast 

Creek is probably a major flow boundary. What this does 

as well -- and we have one site just north of Wallace 

Creek, I believe, right in this area here where there is a 

-- there's one -- there's a cluster site. 

There's a series of wells there that are open to 

several of the units that we identified as aquifers here. 

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 

In particular, there's a well open to the Tarawa Terrace 

aquifer and intermediate to the middle Castle Hayne and 

also to the lower Castle Hayne. And that's just north of 

Wallace Creek. 

And interestingly there, there's only about a 2-foot 

head difference between the head in the lower Castle Hayne 

aquifer and in the -- and the Tarawa Terrace aquifer. And 

I know that's not a lot to go on, but, as far as the 

conceptual model, which we'll talk in terms -- we'll talk 

in a minute about in terms of the model. 

The conceptual model that we developed for guiding 

our approach to the flow-model analysis is that the 

predevelopment of potentiometric surfaces in all of the 

aquifers were relatively similar, in fact, very highly 

similar, so that, as far as the River Bend unit and as far 

as the lower Castle Hayne aquifer, the flow directions and 

the distribution of head in the aquifers was highly 

similar. And that tells us that Northeast Creek, indeed, 

would have been -- well, it is a boundary for flow for all 

of the aquifers that we're dealing with. 

And I'll just take a minute to explain the reasoning 

there. You have groundwater flow -- pick your aquifer: 

River Bend unit or Tarawa Terrace aquifer, whatever. You 

have groundwater flow heading down gradient toward 

Northeast Creek from Tarawa Terrace, and that's heading 

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 

generally south. You have groundwater flow heading east 

and north in the Holcomb Boulevard -- Holcomb Boulevard 

area toward Northeast Creek. Well, this flow has to meet 

in the middle somewhere at Northeast Creek. And at that 

point, you have vertical upward flow in the vicinity of 

the creek. And that was the rationale behind us selecting 

the midline of Northeast Creek -- the midchannel line as a 

flow boundary -- as a no-flow boundary for the 

groundwater-flow model. 

Also, in these USGS reports that I mentioned earlier, 

there were some seismic studies that were conducted in the 

water of New River and Northeast Creek, right around this 

Paradise Point area. And what they -- what they 

discovered was that there were buried subsurface channels 

that were relic -- relic river channels that were now 

under water. And probably, these relic channels manifest 

themselves inland as well as zones of relatively high 

hydraulic conductivity. 

But our -- the distribution, the spatial 

distribution, of our well data are not sufficient that we 

can actually identify what that old relic channel would 

have -- where it is and what it would have been. And that 

may be one of the reasons that we have some irregularities 

in our -- in our surface well data as well as in our 

thickness data and also in our hydraulic-conductivity data 

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 

where, just by chance, one of these wells may have been 

developed in part or all of an old river channel, which 

would have been now filled with sand and would be an area 

of relatively high hydraulic conductivity. 

DR. KONIKOW: Bob, what was the -- what's the 

rationale for the northern limit of your contouring on all 

of these maps? 

MR. FAYE: We have a -- we have digital elevation 

models, Lenny, of this larger area. Let me show you. We 

have digital elevation models of this whole large area 

here. Actually, I think, probably of most of Camp 

Lejeune, but I was just looking at this. And that is 

interpolated to 2-foot contour intervals. And so using 

the -- using that, I identified the divide that ended up 

as the northern boundary, the no-flow boundary, in the 

groundwater flow-model. 

I identified that as a hydraulic divide that 

generally sweeps up like this and down like that, and 

that's a hydraulic -- that's a topographic divide that is 

translated to a hydraulic divide in the groundwater-flow 

model. As I said -- and, of course, those are 2-foot 

contour intervals on the DEM, and they're interpolated as 

well. But that's the best information that we have. 

Okay? 

DR. KONIKOW: Okay. I was looking at the topo maps. 

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 

It looked like there were -- I mean, I couldn't see the 

divide that close. 

MR. FAYE: No, you can't. You can't, Lenny. There's 

a -- I can show you later, when we get into this, a much 

larger map specifically of the Tarawa Terrace area. 

There's -- you might have noticed that just north of this 

road that runs parallel to Lejeune Boulevard, there's a -- 

there is a closed 35-foot contour right north of that 

road, and that sits on that -- that sits on that divide. 

That is mapped on the topographic map. And that coincides 

with -- that coincides with that -- with the divide, as 

recognized on the digital-elevation models. 

DR. LABOLLE: Are you going to -- this is Eric 

LaBolle here. Are you going to get more into the 

simulation of the predevelopment heads? 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

DR. LABOLLE: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: Yes. This is just the framework. 

DR. LABOLLE: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: It'll show up very well, Morris, in the 

next couple of slides. Okay. Claudia, let's go to the 

description of the PCE contamination at Tarawa Terrace. 

There we go. 

Okay. The next major area of responsibility that I 

had was a description of just what is this PCE 

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 

contamination at Tarawa Terrace. Where is it relative to 

the source area? Where is it relative to the supply 

wells? How deep within the subsurface does it go? What 

are the quantities; i.e., concentrations in the water? 

What are the concentrations in the unsaturated materials? 

So let's try to address that. 

The purpose of the study, again, for the record, is 

describe the occurrence and distribution of PCE and 

related contaminants within the Tarawa Terrace and upper 

Castle Hayne aquifers at and in the vicinity of Tarawa 

Terrace housing area, Marine Corps base, Camp Lejeune. 

And a number of comments in the premeeting notes were 

related to degradation products of PCE, and, yes, to the 

best of our ability -- and we're severely limited by the 

data here. But to the best of our ability, we did -- we 

addressed trichloroethylene, which is the immediate 

degradation product of PCE, as well as dichloroethylene, 

the immediate degradation product of TCE, 

trichloroethylene. We addressed all of that as well as we 

could, but the data are very limited; very, very limited. 

Okay. Here's a map. Maybe we can see that 35-foot 

contour. There you go. Can you go back, Claudia. There 

you go, Lenny; right here. 

COURT REPORTER: Please get on your microphone. 

MR. FAYE: Thank you. There you go, Lenny. That's 

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 

that -- that's the contour I was talking about right 

there. And that's right on the line as shown on the DEM 

and comes down to -- it splits the difference between one 

of these two little tributaries right in here, I think. I 

think it's that one. It could be that one. 

DR. KONIKOW: You also have a 35-foot contour a 

little further north. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah; right; right. And there are 

differences between the DEM and the topo map, as you would 

expect. Actually, some of that is fairly significant, 

substantial. The differences are somewhat substantial. I 

can't recall now exactly what -- what's going on up here 

with respect to the DEM. But I looked for the major 

divide between here and there, northeast and southwest, 

and selected it. 

Now, that may not be the -- from a groundwater 

modeling point of view, that may -- and particularly a 

fate and transport point of view, that may not be the best 

-- the best boundary. But, really, if we try to extend 

that north beyond the hydraulic divide, then we're stuck 

with a general head boundary, probably, for all of the 

units that we're modeling. And it just seems to me that 

would introduce more uncertainty into the -- into the 

analysis than selecting the hydraulic divide as the 

topographic divide. But let's -- let's -- go ahead. 

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 

DR. KONIKOW: I'm not convinced of that. Plus 

another problem is that during pumping conditions that 

predevelopment divide -- if that's really where it is and 

I'm not convinced of that either -- that the divide is 

going to migrate under pumping conditions. 

MR. FAYE: It will. I don't think -- I don't think 

the -- at least as far as -- we don't really know. We 

have no data at all, field data, relative to -- relative 

to any kind of notion of radius of influence of the supply 

wells; no data whatsoever, so -- 

DR. KONIKOW: That could be computed -- 

MR. FAYE: We did. 

DR. KONIKOW: -- more accurately than a lot of the 

other things. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. We looked at that. It just depends 

on where you want to go with the minimum drawdown out at 

some radius that you're looking at, whether it's .01 feet 

or .1 feet or something like that. I mean, that bounces 

your radius of influence all over the place. And right 

now, I'm fairly comfortable with the notion of using that 

hydraulic divide not only as far as the predevelopment 

situation is concerned, but as far as the transient. 

But I would certainly welcome any kind of 

qualification or criticisms, comments of that notion. I 

mean, we're open to all that, absolutely. But I wanted 

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 

you just to be aware of my reasoning, you know, as far as 

the decision was concerned to identify it as such. 

DR. JOHNSON: David, you have a comment? 

DR. DOUGHERTY: No. I think we can proceed. 

DR. LABOLLE: Well, I have a question here, actually, 

regarding the -- not the hydraulic divide. But since 

we're on the subject of boundary conditions here -- 

MR. FAYE: If we could -- if we could just be patient 

just for a minute and let me get through the 

contamination, then we'll be into the heart of the 

groundwater model. Okay? 

DR. LABOLLE: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: And that might be the best place to 

discuss that. I didn't mean to -- 

DR. LABOLLE: No. That's just fine. 

MR. FAYE: Okay. 

DR. LABOLLE: That's probably an appropriate 

opportunity. 

MR. FAYE: This slide just identifies all of the 

Tarawa Terrace supply wells that we know of. There 

actually may be several more that we don't have knowledge 

of, but this is all of them from the beginning of time, 

which is -- it'd be about 1952 up to the time in 1987 when 

all the wells were shut down. And, of course -- and, of 

course, some of these were taken out of service long 

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 

before 1987. And as part of our plans, we have identified 

various data reports that we plan to produce. 

And, of course, in the final report, there will be 

data reports, and all of these data will be tabulated and 

identified in terms of well-construction information, when 

the wells were placed in service and removed from 

services, et cetera, et cetera. We do have that 

information for most of these wells. We have good 

information regarding that, not only from our own data 

discovery, but the AH people have been very forthcoming 

and helpful in that regard. 

Claudia, I'm going to go one more slide, just to 

orient myself here; just a second. 

All right. Let me talk a little bit -- and I think 

this is very important to understand. Let me -- even 

though we're a little pressed for time. But let me talk a 

little bit about the contaminant data collection at ABC 

Cleaners and vicinity as well as the Tarawa Terrace supply 

wells that were affected in terms of timing, in terms of 

concentrations, in terms of quality of information. 

What this slide represents is a summary of several 

series of data that were collected between 1991 and 1993. 

And I went into some detail in this in the report, but I 

want to say it here as well for the record. 

The vast majority of these data that you see 

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 

portrayed here -- summarized here actually -- relate to 

DPT data, hydrocone data, direct push technologies. We 

all familiar with that? You know what I'm talking about? 

Okay. There were probably like 40-some -- almost 50 of 

these DPT points where data were collected at -- in an 

upper zone, generally between about 15 and 25 feet, and 

at the same site in a lower zone, generally between 35 and 

45 feet. 

And what you see here is a -- is the -- if it happens 

to be one of those dual sites, this is the highest 

concentration that occurred at that site, whether it was 

the upper shell or the lower shell, the upper zone or the 

lower zone. Several comments about those data: There was 

an analysis done from a field mass spec operation at the 

site when the DPT operation was ongoing, and there were 

results obtained from that. 

The -- Weston, the folks that conducted that site, 

also collected a number of duplicate samples and sent 

these off to a qualified laboratory for analysis. The end 

result of that was that there was very poor agreement 

between the laboratory analyses and the on-site analyses 

for a particular bore hole or whatever. So we have that 

particular problem. By the way, the points that were used 

to construct this map were all the laboratory analyses 

where they were available. Where they were not, we used 

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 

the field -- the field site data. 

Several -- okay. Let's look at -- here's ABC 

Cleaners. A point that I'll make later in our advective 

transport analysis when I describe that -- and, again, I 

apologize. I'm talking about a model here. But it'll be 

clear in a minute. The Well TT-26 is right here, and at 

least as far as our model is concerned now, under normal 

operation, the operation of TT-26 would capture every bit 

of the PCE that was introduced into the subsurface and 

into groundwater at ABC Cleaners. 

But we have fairly large concentrations of PCE north 

and west of ABC Cleaners. And in addition, we have 

respectable concentrations of PCE south of -- south of the 

well here, TT-26. And this is near another supply well, 

TT-23. But as you can see, PCE values or concentrations 

values at this time, now 1991 to 1993 -- you have to 

remember this is four to five years after the Tarawa 

Terrace wells were shut down -- there's zero 

concentrations here. And these points I'm making now 

because they'll occur prominently in the discussion of the 

groundwater-flow model. 

Okay. We had these data, as I mentioned, of the PCE 

concentrations and other contaminant concentrations that 

we could assign to an upper shell and a lower shell. So 

given that, we created -- is that it? I'm going to go for 

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 

this now. We created a map. Thanks, Claudia. 

We created an average or a midconcentration map, 

using the aerial distribution, the spatial distribution 

from the upper shell and from the lower shell. With that 

midconcentration shell, we also computed the volume of 

aquifer material between the two shells. And in doing 

that, the DPT data we actually used the depth they 

identified. If it happened to be a well, we used the 

midpoint of the screen interval to put a limit on the 

volume -- on the depth. 

We computed the area-weighted PCE concentration 

between the average shell-concentration contours. That, 

in a sense because it's the midconcentration shell, is the 

volume-weighted PCE concentration. Once we had that, we 

multiplied that by the volume adjusted by effective 

porosity. And we ended up with a PCE mass of about 2500 

pounds between those two shells or 185 gallons of PCE. 

And this analyses, I think, is described in pretty good 

detail in the report. 

DR. KONIKOW: Bob, why do you use effective porosity 

rather than total porosity? 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. Well, if you recall, Lenny, there 

was a -- there was also a description in the report of the 

movement of the mass of concentration, the center of mass 

of the PCE concentration, from the doorstep of ABC 

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 

Cleaners, in '85, down to some point midway between ABC 

Cleaners and TT -- Well TT-26. 

Well, the reasoning there was that that movement had 

to occur through connected interstices in the porous 

media. And where it ended up in 1991 to '93, the volume 

that that PCE was occupying was only connected 

interstices, not the -- not the total interstices in the 

porous media. So as a consequence, we used effective 

porosity. 

DR. KONIKOW: Well, you know, I think if you have the 

contaminant in the connected interstices, it's going to be 

in the -- I don't see any way to have uncontaminated water 

adjacent to it in the disconnected pores, even if there 

are. And I find it hard to believe there are disconnected 

pores there. You used a specific yield value of 20 

percent, I believe. 

MR. FAYE: In Layer 1 in the Tarawa Terrace aquifer, 

that's right. The rest of -- the rest of the layers --

like, the River Bend unit is 15 percent, and that's where 

the vast majority of the contaminant is. Now, we don't 

have any measurements of effective porosity. We don't 

have any point measurements. 

Two of the studies that -- the Weston study and, I 

believe, the Bragg's report as well, used effective 

porosity depending on the on the unit they were -- of 15 

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 

percent and 10 percent. And I kind of qualitatively 

looked at the lithologies and assigned a slightly higher 

effective porosity to the Tarawa Terrace aquifer. 

It looked to me like that was a cleaner, sandier 

unit. The 15 percent, I accepted for the River Bend unit. 

And I really couldn't see a whole lot of difference in the 

lithologies between that unit and the other aquifer, so I 

assigned a 15 percent effective porosity to the -- to the 

rest. 

But the one point would be that, you know, this is 

just a preliminary calibration. Okay? We really haven't 

-- we really haven't had an opportunity to do all of the 

tests and provide all of the simulation results that we 

want to, so... 

DR. KONIKOW: It's in my comments. But I looked at 

-- there was one part in your report where you say the 

center of mass migrated at about .3 feet per day. 

MR. FAYE: That would have been an average, yeah, 

given the distance. 

DR. KONIKOW: But if you used that information, 

together with the other information, you would estimate an 

effective porosity of about 28 percent. 

MR. FAYE: At a retardation factor of one. 

DR. KONIKOW: If there's no retardation. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. And if there is retardation, which 

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 

I do believe there is, your effective porosity then would 

-- to maintain that same average velocity, your effective 

porosity would have to decrease from that number. And 

really, I think the way to address that, Lenny, is to, you 

know, take your comment and the notion of the analysis, 

which I thought was really on target, and just do a range 

of computations and look at -- look at the various 

alternatives. And that's what -- we'll definitely do 

that. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Is there information from the 

split-spoon samples that you referred to earlier that 

gives total porosities that would provide some boundary 

information on where we are with respect to those? 

MR. FAYE: You know, I won't say no. If there -- if 

there are, they would be -- there would be very, very few. 

And they would be probably only related to the Tarawa 

Terrace aquifer or the River Bend unit. Okay? 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: Okay. 

DR. LABOLLE: Can you define how you're using 

effective porosity in this context? 

MR. FAYE: Only in terms of the advective transport. 

DR. LABOLLE: That's not what I mean. I mean, are we 

talking about effective porosity at the pore scale, or are 

we talking about some macroscopic effective porosity to 

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 

scale the velocities in the contaminant transport model? 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. Well, the correct answer to that is 

yes (laughter). And I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. 

I'm just saying that, you know, we're sort of stuck with 

-- when you do the advective transport modeling, 

obviously, it's a macro-scale condition. Okay? But if we 

have any data at all, it would be -- it would be data only 

on a -- it would be like a laboratory test that you could 

probably relate to the pore scale itself. Conceptually, 

we're dealing with the pore-scale concept. Okay? But in 

practical application, it's a macro scale. Okay? 

DR. LABOLLE: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: And let me go back now. We'll look at 

some temporal -- are there any questions at all about the 

PCE mass? I want to make one other comment about that 

computation. Pankow and Cherry, not only in their text 

but also in at least one journal article, they address 

this particular methodology. And they have some comments 

about the results. 

One comment that they -- that they make is the fact 

that that particular result of 185 gallons -- actually, 

they give several examples, like seven or ten examples in 

their work. It sort of fits midway into their -- into 

their volumes that they've computed for -- at various -- 

various places and various studies. Also, they make the 

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 

point that this is very likely just a very small 

percentage of the total PCE that's actually out there in 

residence in the aquifers themselves, and we believe that 

as well. 

MR. MASLIA: Am I on here? I believe -- and Bob 

brought this to my attention -- there, either through 

some verbal information or a report that quantified that, 

they estimated that the ABC Cleaners were using 

approximately 100 gallons a month of PCE historically in 

their dry-cleaning process. So again, the 185 is an 

extremely small -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

MR. MASLIA: -- percentage of what potentially could 

be out there. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. I hate to waste 60 seconds on an 

anecdote, but I am because it gives you a -- just 

clarifies the kind of things that we're dealing with. 

Wouldn't you believe that if someone is conducting an 

RI/FS investigation twice relative to ABC Cleaners that 

one of the things they would at least do would be to ask 

those folks how much PCE they're actually using during 

their operations or did use during their operations? No. 

Nowhere in the RI/FS reports, the detailed technical 

investigation reports, nowhere do you find any kind of 

reference at all as to what was happening at the source in 

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 

terms of PCE use. 

The report Morris referred to is something I ran 

across fairly recently. It was a report from the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who were looking 

at the impact of this PCE loss into the groundwater on 

wildlife and wildlife habitat in Northeast Creek. And 

those folks actually had enough sense to go and talk to 

the ABC Cleaners and ask them, "How much PCE do you folks 

actually use a month in your operations?" And it turned 

out to be about 380 liters or 100 gallons a month. 

MR. MASLIA: Dr. Johnson, there's a question from the 

public. 

DR. JOHNSON: Please. Go ahead. State your name, 

please. 

MR. ENSMINGER: (Off microphone) My name's Jerry 

Ensminger. I was a resident there. 

COURT REPORTER: Can you state your name again, 

please. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Yes. My name's Jerry Ensminger. I 

was a resident there. I lost my daughter to leukemia. 

When you're talking about historical data, and especially 

ABC Dry Cleaners, there are a lot of variables in that 

site that need to be considered. And one thing is the 

historical information: What took place between 1965 and 

1970 which involved the Marine Corps and increased the 

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 

population of the Marine Corps almost two-fold, and that 

was Vietnam. 

From 1965 to 1972, that was the heyday for dry 

cleaners in Jacksonville. Did anybody get the tax records 

from these people because PCE would have been an expense 

which would have shown how much they actually used? And 

knowing the amount of people -- every Marine that went in 

the Marine Corps east of the Mississippi River ended up at 

Camp Lejeune to go to their infantry training school at 

Camp Geiger. 

These dry-cleaning services had trucks that went 

aboard base, collected these kids' uniforms at the chow 

halls in the morning and brought them back that night or 

the next morning. They picked them up. But every Marine 

east of the Mississippi went through Camp Lejeune. These 

people made a fortune during those years, and the PCE use 

was elevated. Thank you. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Thank you for your comment; 

absolutely. 

MR. FAYE: Claudia, could we go back a few slides to 

the -- there we go. Keep going and maybe one or two more; 

one more. All right. 

These slides represent what we have at the wellheads 

in terms of contaminant concentration through time. 

Beginning in late '84 or early '85, these are our data 

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 

points that we have. This is Well TT-26. This is 

probably the main culprit in terms of providing PCE to the 

water-distribution system, far and away, probably. But 

you can see the poor distribution of data. 

Now, enter -- let's go -- let me see what we have 

here. That was PCE. This is the daughter product, TCE. 

Virtually, the analyses are for the same time. And you 

can see there was -- you can make a pretty good case there 

that biodegradation of the PCE product was going on. 

DR. JOHNSON: And what's the source of these data? 

MR. FAYE: Who asked that? 

MR. MASLIA: Dr. Johnson. 

DR. JOHNSON: What's the source of the data? 

MR. FAYE: Dr. Johnson, there are a variety of 

sources. Some of it came from LANTDIV, the Marine -- the 

Navy lab. Some of it came from EPA. Some of it came from 

the North Carolina EPA equivalent. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Do we have any information on 

sampling protocols? 

MR. FAYE: Only in the -- only in the latter reports, 

the latter analyses, which would be in 1991. We think -- 

have to assume that if NCDEM, North Carolina Department of 

Environmental Management, did the analyses or the LANTDIV 

people did the analyses that it probably was a respectable 

representation of the protocols at that time. And they've 

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 

changed a lot. The protocols have changed a heck of a lot 

in the last 20 years, so... 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Just to clarify, at that point in 

time, there were pumps still in these wells? 

MR. FAYE: Oh, yeah. Yeah. The wells were actually 

abandoned formally; and that is, grouted up, pumps 

removed, everything like that in 1991. 

MR. MASLIA: David, I have a document, again, just 

received. I hate to keep saying "just received," but you 

know the story. And, in fact, it lists many of the TT 

wells, and it will say "Well closed but pump still 

installed in the well," and TT-26, TT-23, and so on. And 

this is a nine -- I believe it's a '91. I believe I left 

it on the desk there; a '91, '92 report. It's handwritten 

notes. It's a document released by the Marine Corps to 

us. But it does indicate whether the well can be operated 

and whether it still has a pump or the well does not have 

a pump and can be operated. 

MR. FAYE: You know, and that was a note from the -- 

from the folks at the facilities -- in charge of 

facilities at Camp Lejeune to the EPA contractor, who was 

inquiring whether or not these wells were sampleable. And 

almost immediately, as far as I can tell, after this 

contractor obtained those July 1991 analyses, those wells 

were history. They were grouted up. They were done. 

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 

Now, also, recently -- we keep referring to these 

recent revelations that we get. We have -- actually down 

to the -- down to report numbers, dates, sample numbers, 

the whole thing. We have information regarding monthly 

samples at Well TT-25, which was not -- which was actually 

right about here. And this -- in July of 1991, there was 

an indication that Well TT-25 was beginning to show 

contamination in its discharge. 

And North Carolina DEM recommended that monthly 

samples at TT-25 be collected over the period April -- 

actually until the well was shut down. But the samples 

were collected from April of '86 to April of '87. And 

we're making major, major efforts now to obtain the 

results of those analyses. The Marine Corps doesn't seem 

to know anything about them. But we know -- we know the 

samples were collected. We know the analyses were made. 

We have sample numbers and report numbers. So we're 

trying to -- and that will fill in some of that, some of 

that gap. 

Yeah. Also at the -- in the same documents, there 

were weekly samples taken on the downstream end of the 

Tarawa Terrace WTP at the same time, which would -- which 

would help Morris' efforts to -- and the network 

simulation efforts immensely. Again, we're trying to find 

those data. We know they exist, but no one seems to know 

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 

where. 

MR. MASLIA: Let me just qualify. Those data were -- 

there was a panel in September or October, convened by the 

commandant of the Marine Corps, and it's a published 

report. It's on the Marine Corps. And in Appendix or 

Attachment K, they list some of those data. The issue 

that both Bob and I have with that is that the Marine 

Corps commandant's panel left out -- and I'm not sure why 

-- any qualifiers on the data and any of the nondetects 

based on their interpretation. 

I have requested that, and there was a letter from 

the U.S. Navy to U.S. EPA Region IV, transmitting the data 

weekly for a various number of wells with these 

attachments. EPA doesn't have that -- the attachments, 

and apparently, my last communication with headquarters 

Marine is they're working on finding the attachments. But 

that would, again, supply us with what appears to be, on 

the surface, very needed information because it goes from, 

I believe, the first week in December of '84 through about 

'86. 

DR. JOHNSON: Bob, if I could go back to your 

contamination -- 

MR. FAYE: Oh, yes, sir. 

DR. JOHNSON: -- data. I didn't see any error bars 

for each of the data points. And is that not done for 

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 

this kind of data? If it were a tox study, you would 

expect to find it. 

MR. FAYE: When you say "error bars," you're -- 

DR. JOHNSON: Standard errors, standard deviation; 

some sense of variability at each data point. 

MR. FAYE: Well, at the very -- at the very most, Dr. 

Johnson, except for those supply wells that we have, that 

I showed you through time, the spatial maps like that at 

the very, very most, we have only two samples. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: And those are for different levels. 

Remember, I talked about the upper shell and the lower 

shell, and that's all we have there. There were -- we 

could do some sort of cursory analyses like that for the 

half a dozen samples that we have at a single site like -- 

but that's so dynamic, you've got biodegradation going on. 

DR. JOHNSON: I understand. 

MR. FAYE: I don't know what that would show. 

DR. LABOLLE: How do you explain the region between 

the two plumes with the zero concentration? What's your 

interpretation of that? 

MR. FAYE: That, I'll talk about in the model. Okay? 

DR. LABOLLE: Yeah. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. That's after a lot of aspirin, 

believe me. Okay. We've got a few minutes left to talk 

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 

about the model. Let's get going. I'm not going deal 

with the introductory material. Let's do the purpose of 

study. 

Construct and calibrate a groundwater-flow model 

sufficiently representative of the geohydrologic framework 

and groundwater-flow conditions at Tarawa Terrace and 

vicinity to support fate and transport simulations. 

You've already seen the well locations. You know what the 

aquifers are and confining units. 

Let's describe the model grid very briefly: 270 

columns, 200 rows. That's the complete model domain. 

That's the inactive and active areas, 24,000 active cells. 

All of the active domains are spatially equivalent. The 

cell dimensions are 50 feet by 50 feet. 

There's nine layers, and they correspond exactly to 

the geometries of the aquifers and confining units that 

we've identified. Frenchman's Creek -- could we -- could 

we go back to that; Frenchman -- Frenchman's Creek is a -- 

sorry. Frenchman's Creek is a small drain in the western 

part of Tarawa Terrace, and that's -- that's accommodated 

in the model as a drain in Layer 1, which is the Tarawa 

Terrace aquifer. 

Northeast Creek, the whole area -- sorry, Claudia. 

Northeast Creek, this -- the whole area down to the 

midchannel line, which is our no-flow boundary, is a 

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 

specified head boundary, zero altitude, in Layer 1. In 

the other -- in the other eight layers, it's just an 

active layer or an active part of it -- of the model. 

DR. KONIKOW: Is that salt water at Northeast Creek? 

MR. FAYE: Yes. Yes. It's not seawater, Lenny, but 

it's tidal. And it's definitely -- it's definitely -- 

it's definitely saline. Okay? Whatever that boundary is 

in terms of TDS or whatever you want to call salt water, I 

don't think it -- I don't think it quite meets that. But 

it's definitely saline. 

DR. LABOLLE: I had noticed that the previous map 

you'd put up with hydraulic-head measurements, the 

hydraulic heads along Northeast Creek that have been 

measured -- or on boundaries of it -- 

MR. FAYE: Mm-hmm. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- range from 14 to about 4 feet. And 

now you're putting the boundary condition on the creek of 

a zero head in Layer 1. How -- what kind of 

correspondence does that have to the elevation mapping 

along the Northeast Creek as far as the actual heads in -- 

on the creek itself, and how is that influencing the flow 

model? 

MR. FAYE: Okay. Let me try to understand your 

question, which I don't completely. Are you asking: Do we 

actually have measurements within the various aquifers 

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 

within the Northeast Creek area or on shore at wells that 

were -- 

DR. LABOLLE: Either. 

MR. FAYE: We don't have any measurements in that -- 

within the creek area itself. 

DR. LABOLLE: I'm referring to a map you showed in 

the previous presentation where we were looking at 

hydraulic heads that shows them from -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. The estimated potentiometric 

surface? 

DR. LABOLLE: Exactly. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. Okay. 

DR. LABOLLE: And I'm looking at a contour map here 

in one of the reports that shows a predevelopment 

simulation, and now I'm hearing you describe this boundary 

condition of a zero head along the creek. And I'm asking 

how does that boundary condition influence the model 

because there appears to be some potential inconsistency 

there between the 14- to 4-foot head difference along 

Northeast Creek in the measured potentiometric heads. And 

I say along Northeast Creek -- 

MR. FAYE: Mm-hmm. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- I mean, they're interpolated from 

measured heads -- 

MR. FAYE: Mm-hmm. 

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 

DR. LABOLLE: -- taken at wells, you know -- 

MR. FAYE: Mm-hmm; right. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- in the land nearby and the heads 

plotted, for example, in the potentiometric contours in 

one of these predevelopment simulations. And this refers 

directly to the boundary that you just discussed, the -- 

MR. FAYE: Right; right. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- zero-head boundary. 

MR. FAYE: Right. The -- I think the map you're 

referring to, the actual loop contour is 4-feet upstream 

of -- that shows flow toward Northeast Creek. The actual 

loop contour is a 4-foot contour, not a 14-foot contour. 

And then there's -- you're going to have to remember now, 

this is an interpolation, so -- 

DR. LABOLLE: Well, I think it was four on the 

downstream and then -- 

MR. FAYE: That's right. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- 14 feet if you go up the creek, I 

think, if you go to the far end of the creek. Is that -- 

am I correct, or... 

MR. FAYE: Well, that -- yeah. That's an 

interpolation from a point onshore at Tarawa Terrace to a 

further point, further offshore -- onshore at Holcomb 

Boulevard. So -- 

DR. LABOLLE: Okay. 

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 

MR. FAYE: -- this is just an estimated -- remember, 

I said this was a map that we were -- 

DR. LABOLLE: There we go. 

MR. FAYE: -- we would try to put in the highest 

water level so that we could just kind of define for our 

own purposes what we thought the major flow directions 

were in the system as well as what the major boundaries 

were. 

DR. LABOLLE: I can see these Xs on here are -- 

or the plus signs are the actual data points used in 

creating -- 

MR. FAYE: Yes. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- this map. 

MR. FAYE: Yes. 

DR. LABOLLE: So effectively, what I'm hearing is 

that you don't -- actually, you don't have enough data 

near the creek to -- 

MR. FAYE: No. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- just to -- 

MR. FAYE: No. No. 

DR. LABOLLE: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: This was -- this was a kriging exercise. 

DR. LABOLLE: Which explains the inconsistently. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. Yeah. 

DR. LABOLLE: Okay. Thank you. 

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 

MR. FAYE: We were just there trying to -- well, for 

example, this shows up very nicely here; this Loop 4, I 

mean. It definitely shows that you're looking at -- as 

far as the extant data are concerned and as far as this 

particular interpolation is concerned, you definitely 

have, you know, a gaining stream. And you have -- 

definitely have a flow toward it from the north to the 

south and the south to the north. 

And there's, you know, an inconsistent -- this is -- 

this shows the inconsistency between -- you know, caused 

by interpolation very well. You've got, you know, this 

data point here. Obviously, this contour in the real 

world doesn't cross the river like that. But this is all 

of our dirty laundry, you know, that we're laying out 

there, I mean. And this is just for estimating and 

interpretive purposes. This is nothing that we would put 

forth as a real potentiometric surface map. 

Okay, Claudia, let's go to the modeling. 

DR. JOHNSON: Bob, take about five minutes, and then 

we will adjourn for lunch and come back and continue with 

what you are presenting. 

MR. FAYE: Okay. I'll try to finish as much of it as 

I can in that five minutes, Dr. Johnson. Thank you. 

That's a picture of our grid. That's the active 

model domain. This is the now infamous northern boundary 

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 

that we talked about earlier. This is Layer 1 -- yeah, 

Layer 1. This is Frenchman's Creek. And that's an old -- 

this is an old map, by the way. This was before I filled 

in the rest of Northeast Creek as a -- as a specified head 

boundary. 

There's your -- I forgot I had the map with me here. 

There you go -- layer tops or cell-by-cell arrays that 

equate directly to the corresponding geohydrologic unit 

arrays. And I just showed some examples that we've 

already seen. We're not going to repeat that. 

I did play around with the horizontal hydraulicconductivity distributions a little bit and try to 

differentiate a hydraulic-conductivity array for the 

Tarawa Terrace aquifer and then possibly -- and the River 

Bend unit and then possibly a different array for the 

middle Castle Hayne aquifer. But you can -- you can take 

your pick. It's, basically, I think, if you used all the 

data and assigned it to all the layers as far as the 

aquifers were concerned, you probably would not be far 

off. 

Let's see. The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 

Layer 9, I reduced strictly to 5 feet per day. And that 

was just based on a qualitative evaluation of the few 

descriptions of lithology of that unit that I had. I 

assigned a hydraulic conductivity of .2 feet per day to 

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 

all of the confining units, and that was somewhat 

arbitrary but not completely. 

I had a -- I had a -- one aquifer test, a good 

aquifer test actually using an observation well. Where 

the observation well was -- actually both the observation 

and pumping were partly screened across the Tarawa Terrace 

confining unit. And it came out to be a very low 

horizontal hydraulic conductivity, and so -- I think of 

like 2 feet per day. So I just took an order of magnitude 

less than that and assigned it. 

And I want to make a comment, too, about the model 

that I hope you'll keep in mind through the rest of the 

discussion. This is just -- this is a preliminary 

calibration that we got to where we thought we were 

actually getting some reasonable results. 

We haven't really been able to completely test the 

flow model or for sensitivity or the advection transport 

model for all the results that were -- that we'd really be 

interested in. You could look at it on the other side. 

There's not a lot of sense spending time on that if we 

have a fatally failed model, so that will -- hopefully, 

we'll find things like that out from your panel comments. 

And I think the vertical anisotropy of -- was 10 

percent that I assigned to all layers. The specific yield 

of the Tarawa Terrace aquifer, I assigned as .2. The rest 

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 

were -- was point -- well, the rest doesn't -- don't 

count. That's the only unconfined aquifer. 

The storativity of the model, Layers 2 to 9, I 

assigned as five times ten to the minus four. I have no 

storage coefficient data for any of the aquifers, okay, 

with the possible exception of one or two measurements 

that I kind of wonder about in the Tarawa Terrace aquifer. 

But as far as the -- as far as the other layers are 

concerned, two to nine, the storativity is constant at 

.0005. The specific storage of all the model layers is 

simply the thickness determined from the layer geometry 

divided into that number, and that's our specific storage 

that we assigned to the model in a cell-by-cell array. 

Okay. The calibration strategy. Dr. Johnson, you 

ready? 

DR. JOHNSON: Let's stop right here. 

MR. FAYE: Okay. 

DR. JOHNSON: And we will resume with your 

presentation because it's really important that we 

understand what it is that's been done and what you're 

proposing to do. Also, Mr. Maslia has prepared some 

responses to your premeeting comments. And following 

Bob's presentation, Morris, I'd like for you to put that 

in front of us. 

Following that, we will then begin discussing -- and 

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 

it may be simply something that reflects my own 

personality. But they gave us eight questions to answer, 

and I propose to drag us through one by one because they 

took the time to prepare them. And they really need your 

advice and insight on many of those questions, it seems to 

me. 

So that's kind of how I see -- how we proceed after 

lunch. Does anyone want to do it differently, or... 

(No audible response) 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Well, be back here promptly at 

one o'clock because that's when we will resume. And, 

Morris, any questions, any announcement about the lunch 

arrangements? 

MR. MASLIA: Again, if you want to eat at the Century 

Center motel or hotel where you're staying -- I've eaten 

there before. It's fine. I'm still around. The bus is 

there. I would ask that the panel members get the first 

bus out there because the bus seats 12. We're going to 

make two trips and then anyone else. Or there are other 

establishments around here. But we've allotted 11:45 to 

one -- an hour and 15 minutes or so. 

Obviously, I know Dr. Johnson would prefer to get out 

by five today. Today's not as critical as I'm sure people 

who are catching a plane tomorrow afternoon, so we'll just 

play it by ear then. But do try to get back as promptly 

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 

as we can. 

(Whereupon, a recess of approximately 73 minutes was 

taken.) 

MR. FAYE: All right. Let's continue with the 

discussion where we left it off. Let's talk about the 

model-calibration strategy, if we could, for just a 

minute. The first -- the first effort was to develop a 

conceptual model of groundwater flow. Then we wanted to 

define a predevelopment condition as well as we could, 

knowing that it was, at best, an estimate of 

predevelopment conditions -- and when I say 

"predevelopment," that's prepumping -- and simulate that 

as well as we could, but knowing that we would have to 

iterate back and forth between a transient simulation and 

a predevelopment simulation in terms of changing arrays 

and whatever; but any -- to see if the simulations that we 

-- that we obtained for the prepumping condition would 

generally support the conceptual model and then attempt to 

do the same thing basically with transient simulations. 

And we would have to choose the period of interest 

for the transient simulations as a period when we had as 

many water-level data as we possibly could to give us some 

insight into how good or how poor our transient 

simulations were or are. And essentially, that's -- with 

a few sort of rather cursory advective transport 

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 

simulations, that's -- that is where we are now in the 

modeling effort, groundwater-flow modeling effort. 

The conceptual model that we came up with -- and I've 

already alluded to all of -- to most of this. Your 

groundwater flow occurs as -- groundwater recharge occurs 

in the highland areas and flows down gradient toward 

Northeast Creek and Frenchman's Creek and New River. The 

long-term average annual recharge is 12 inches, and that 

is -- that's borrowed strictly from several North Carolina 

State and USGS reports. That seems to be the favorite 

number that folks -- that folks apply to this part of the 

North Carolina coastal plain in terms -- could you go 

back, Claudia -- in terms of recharge to the water table. 

The Tarawa Terrace area is not dissected to a large 

degree with drainage, with streams. Frenchman Creek is 

essentially the only prominent creek in the area. And my 

particular feeling is that recharge could probably range 

from 12 -- net recharge could probably range from 12 to 16 

inches per year in that area. If you look at the maps of 

long-term average annual rainfall and potential 

evapotranspiration for this part of Onslow County in North 

Carolina, you're looking at a difference between the two 

numbers of about 16 inches. 

So somewhere between 12 and 16 inches per year is the 

number that we'll probably end up with as an estimate of 

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 

long-term average annual recharge, and that's one of the 

things that we want to continue to -- one of the issues 

that we need to continue to address in the modeling that 

we haven't done yet. 

And the other third element of the conceptual model 

is -- and I've already suggested that previously -- that 

the potentiometric surfaces in all of the aquifers are 

relatively similar. And if you'll recall, that large area 

map that I showed earlier that we had some discussion 

about here, if we just take the piece out of that that 

reflects Tarawa Terrace, you can see the data points. You 

can see the contours, and now these represent -- these are 

data points that represent the highest water levels at a 

particular point or the oldest. And for the most part, 

they're the highest. 

Okay. All of these points here in the western part 

of the study area, these relate to us; fairly coarse and 

crude studies of underground-storage tank removals. And 

we selected these water levels regardless of season, 

regardless of -- regardless of season. There's probably 

some fairly inherent inaccuracies in there because of the 

lack of data that we had at a particular point. But to be 

honest with you, I was just so happy to have a data point 

in a particular place, I just -- I selected it and just 

kept in mind the caveats regarding the accuracy of the 

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 

point. 

But that's the map in detail for Tarawa Terrace that 

we generated, our estimate of the prepumping 

potentiometric surface. And if you recall, I mentioned 

earlier in the context of the framework discussion, that 

the monitor wells and bore hole logs that we had were 

concentrated in the southern part of the Tarawa Terrace 

area. That's actually in a shopping center area there 

where there's a -- probably a half a dozen or so RI/FS 

operations going on. And then here, of course, are the 

monitor-well data and -- related to the ABC problem. 

So that's our conceptual model, the hydraulic 

characteristic data that we described earlier, and the 

arrays and whatever. We applied that to Modflow, Modflow 

2000. We have the drain -- is that the upper Castle 

Hayne? That is -- that's either -- well, that could be 

the River Bend unit or the lower unit. It's probably the 

River Bend unit. There's our simulation. You'll recall 

now that -- darn it. Claudia, can we go back, please; 

forward one. There we go. 

Recall that in the uppermost layer that Northeast 

Creek out to the midchannel section is all a specified 

head of zero elevation. You can see that, for the most 

part, at 12 inches a year recharge, with Frenchman's Creek 

in there as a drain -- and this is -- this is three or 

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 

four layers below the Layer 1. You can see that the 

discharge to Frenchman Creek is still occurring. It's 

well defined. You can see that the -- that the head 

declines from the highland areas toward Northeast Creek 

and toward New River, toward Frenchman's Creek. 

The flow lines are just as we had hoped in the 

conceptual model down toward the southeast and the south 

toward Northeast Creek. So for all intents and purposes, 

given the sort of cursory data and approach that we used, 

the simulation of the prepumping conditions, I think, 

supported our conceptual model quite well, and we were 

satisfied with that. 

So let's take another look. No. That's the 

simulated potentiometric surface in the lower Castle Hayne 

aquifer. So we've essentially gone from Layer 1 to Layer 

9. And as you can see, just as the conceptual model 

indicated, we're dealing with a very similar -- very 

similar directions in terms of flow lines and a relatively 

similar potentiometric contours and slightly higher heads; 

slightly lower heads in the highland areas; slightly 

higher heads in the discharge areas. 

This is a scatter diagram of those data points that I 

just told you about, wherein -- which we used to construct 

our prepumping surface. This is just a direct one-to-one 

comparison between the simulated head and the observed 

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 

head with -- and the observed heads, as I said, they have 

some bit of baggage associated with them. But it's not -- 

I think that's quite good actually. The variance on this, 

I think, was slightly less than one; the comparison 

between the observed and the simulated heads, .96. 

There we are. Okay. There's our simulated 

predevelopment budget, the recharge -- Claudia, please. 

Thank you. She's getting used to me. 

The recharge was 1.9 CFS, and if you want to 

distribute that to the 1400 acres for a year, you'll find 

that you've got 12 inches a year. Discharge to Frenchman 

-- we want to distribute that then as discharge. 

Discharge to Frenchman's Creek was .6 CFS, and discharge 

to Northeast Creek was 1.3 CFS. And this is nice and easy 

in the model. It tells you what you're discharging to 

drains, and it tells you what you're discharging to 

specified heads. So it's sort of a no-brainer after the 

computation is done. 

All right. We'll talk about the transient 

simulation. I went into some discussion in the report 

regarding the quality of head data that we were dealing 

with, with respect to creating a transient simulation, 

developing a transient simulation. The vast, vast, vast 

majority of those head data occur between 1978 and 1985. 

And as best as I can understand it -- and I would be the 

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 

first to admit I don't completely understand where the 

head data come from or how they were measured, I guess, is 

a better way to say it -- these are air line measurements. 

And there was apparently a monthly requirement at 

Camp Lejeune to obtain what they called a static level and 

a pumping level at each of their supply wells. And we 

have data, as I said, from Tarawa -- for Tarawa Terrace 

for almost all of the supply wells. There's data gaps, 

but all of the supply wells are in the mix from January of 

1978 to about April of 1986. 

And -- so we used the static-water levels as a 

calibration standard, and we didn't try to adjust them. 

We just took them as they were. And you'll see in a slide 

here that, basically, these levels -- you know, for static 

levels, they're sort of all over the landscape. We don't 

have any notion of the accuracy of the gauges that they 

used. I made some -- I made some estimates of that in the 

report. We don't have any notion of the accuracy of the 

gauges that were used to obtain these measurements. 

We do know that the gauges were calibrated to the 

depth of the air line in the well. We don't know if there 

was a standard. For example, when you obtain a waterlevel measurement, you repeat the measurement until you 

get a consistent result within some predetermined error. 

We don't know if that was done. We don't know whether 

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 

this measurement was just a one-time shot. We don't know 

how much time elapsed between turning. If it was indeed a 

static measurement, we don't know how much time elapsed 

between terminating the pumping at the well and collecting 

the so-called static level. We don't know any of this. 

We're on track to answer some of those questions when 

we have some discussions with the folks at Camp Lejeune. 

But I just want to outline the uncertainties related to 

these data. So -- and we selected -- because Morris and 

Mr. Bove are -- you've already heard this morning of the 

time reference that they're interested in, we selected 

one-month periods as stress periods. 

So between -- and we extended the transient 

simulation through 1994 because, in '91, '92, '93, and 

'94, we had several dozen accurate water-level 

measurements that were obtained throughout the Tarawa 

Terrace area in various monitoring wells that were related 

to several RI/FS investigations, ongoing investigations. 

So rather than stop the transient analysis at, like, when 

the wells shut down in 1987, we extended the analysis 

without pumping at Tarawa Terrace up through the end of 

1994 to take advantage of those additional measurements. 

Let's go through a number of details. So that 

results in 204 monthly stress periods. Because I think 

the 12-inch standard -- the recharge of 12 inches per year 

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 

is somewhat on the low side -- I had some difficulties 

with cells drying up in the upper two layers of the model, 

and this caused some convergence problems during the 

transient simulations. 

So I just tweaked the recharge for that particular 

stress period; just would start it at 12, and I'd increase 

it to 13 inches a year, maybe 14 inches a year to maintain 

a continuance convergence for each stress period. And I 

had, ultimately, a range of recharge rates between 12 and 

16 inches per year that I ended up using for a month. 

Those were monthly rates. I think the average recharge 

that I ended up with between -- for the period January '78 

to March -- or December of '86 was like 12.7 inches per 

year. 

We had data from a consultant's report that listed 

the well capacities, the active supply wells, in 1979. 

And those are the capacities that we identified and used 

throughout the transient analysis. We also had annual -- 

annual average daily pumpage rates. Actually, these were 

-- these were treated-water rates from the Tarawa Terrace 

WTP on an annual basis, so -- that were reported by the 

USGS in one of their reports. 

So, for example, in 1982, for example, we would -- 

we had a number of, like -- I don't know. I'll shoot at 

it -- maybe, like .93 MGD. So for the whole year, 1982, 

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 

the average pumping rate was like .92, .93 MGD. So we had 

that number, and we had well capacities. 

We also had a crude idea of how Tarawa Terrace 

operates their well systems. It's called a rotating 

system. They would -- at a particular well, they might 

pump for eight hours a day, and the well then would be on 

standby for like 16 hours a day. And they would rotate 

that type of a schedule through their whole active supply 

well network. And, of course, we don't have -- we have no 

data indicating the period of pumping for any particular 

well for any particular day. 

So -- but I did know -- I did -- unless these 

operational records that had -- that we have copies of 

that include these static water-level measurements. 

Unless they indicated that, say, for example, Well TT-26 

pumped all month or Well TT-52 was down for two months for 

maintenance or something like that, I made sure that the 

actual rate that I used for simulation in the model was 

less than the capacity and also that all of the wells 

pumped for a particular stress period for a particular 

year equaled the rate -- the average daily rate reported 

by the USGS. Those were the only two constraints that I 

had. 

And a secondary constraint were the operational 

records. So if a -- if the records told me that a 

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 

particular well did not pump for a certain three months in 

1984, I honored that. I took that pump off-line. I 

didn't -- that well off-line. There was no water 

discharge for that. 

So those are basically the three constraints that I 

used to put together a pumping schedule for 1978 through 

1986. And then, of course, when the wells were all shut 

down in March of '87, then all the wells were turned off. 

And the Tarawa Terrace -- then the aquifer basically 

recovered to pretty much its simulated predevelopment 

condition in a very short period of time. 

Okay. I think that covers that all. 

DR. WALSKI: I have a question. 

MR. FAYE: Sure. 

DR. WALSKI: On the monthly recharge rates, did you 

take into account anything about whether it was a wet 

month? dry month? Like, some -- 

MR. FAYE: No. 

DR. WALSKI: -- months you had hurricanes hitting 

with -- 

MR. FAYE: No. 

DR. WALSKI: -- huge flows -- 

MR. FAYE: No. 

DR. WALSKI: -- and some with none. 

MR. FAYE: That's a great question, Tom. No. We 

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 

haven't had time to do that. We're in the process of 

having discussions, actually. And that's something that 

we would very much like to hear from you -- from you-all, 

from the panel. What we have in terms of meteorological 

data: We have pan evaporation data so -- and on a monthly 

basis. We have rainfall data on a monthly basis for our 

whole period of interest, basically from 1950 to 1995, 

something like that, as much as we want. Okay? 

So we have that all on a monthly basis. And once we 

can make a decision about a long-term average rainfall -- 

rather long-term average recharge, whether it's 14 inches 

or 13-1/2 or 15 or whatever it is, we're trying to devise 

a scheme to use this meteorologic record to adjust our 

recharge on a monthly basis. That's clearly, clearly on 

the radar screen, but as I said earlier, these simulations 

were pretty basic. I mean, we're just trying to get a 

handle on things, and we haven't done that. Okay? 

And that's kind of why I felt free to just kind of 

tweak recharge during a stress period when I had a 

convergence problem, just boost it a little bit to a 

particular higher rate -- a little higher rate and achieve 

convergence and go on because I wanted to see what the end 

product was. Okay? 

DR. KONIKOW: Did you give any thought to the 

possibility that recharge may be greater than the natural 

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 

recharge in urban areas where you have lawn watering 

 and -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

DR. KONIKOW: -- leaks and -- 

MR. FAYE: Leaky pipes -- 

DR. KONIKOW: -- car washing and -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah, we have; we have. And any comments 

that you-all have about how to deal with that -- there's a 

really good paper -- I can't quote it right now to you -- 

that really goes into a tremendous amount of detail on 

this and using GIS to look at the lawn areas and the paved 

areas and everything else and -- 

DR. KONIKOW: Are they on septic tanks, all the 

houses -- 

MR. FAYE: They were. 

DR. KONIKOW: -- housing developments? 

MR. FAYE: They were originally on septic tanks. 

DR. KONIKOW: That's a source of recharge. 

MR. FAYE: Oh, absolutely; for quite a while. And 

they're on a collection system now, but for -- 

DR. KONIKOW: A leaky collection system, no doubt. 

MR. FAYE: Probably; yeah. And the water supply, the 

pressurized pipes are probably leaking as well in 

different places. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We've thought 

about all of that. We haven't really acted on it. We're 

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 

in the process of trying to find -- figure out how to act 

on it. 

DR. KONIKOW: Now, you have a lot of cells going dry, 

I saw, in your simulation -- 

MR. FAYE: In the -- in the -- yeah -- 

DR. KONIKOW: -- if you're concerned about that. 

MR. FAYE: In the -- in Layer 1 and Layer 2 in the 

highland areas; yes. And that -- and I know for a fact 

that that actually is true in the real world. These -- 

those cells would only be wet, seasonally wet. Okay? 

DR. KONIKOW: Yeah. 

MR. FAYE: The water table -- 

DR. KONIKOW: Did you -- did you run Modflow with the 

rewetting? 

MR. FAYE: I did, and it just caused a tremendous 

amount of convergence problems. I'm going to revisit that 

again. 

DR. KONIKOW: Have you thought -- you were using 

monthly stress periods, but I believe you're also using 

monthly time steps. Have you thought of cranking down 

your time-step size? 

MR. FAYE: Oh, to a smaller size? 

DR. KONIKOW: Yeah. In other words -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

DR. KONIKOW: -- you could have monthly stress 

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 

periods but -- 

MR. FAYE: I did that. I did that. I did that when 

I rewet it, when I played around with the rewetting 

feature. And it just -- I was not -- I spent a lot of 

time. I was not successful. I'm hoping -- I'm hoping -- 

well, I very strongly believe that the baseline recharge 

that we come up with, this long-term average annual, is 

going to be somewhere probably around 14 inches or so. 

I'm hoping that when we're dealing with that extra 

recharge plus, you know, we'll be starting out as a 

prepumping condition. So we'll have antecedent conditions 

taken care of pretty well, right from the get-go, in early 

1950s. 

I am hoping that we -- we're still going to have dry 

cells. I'm hoping it's not going to be a big issue. And 

I hope, maybe, we can try to do some rewetting in that 

context, but the rewetting was not at all successful, not 

at all. 

DR. KONIKOW: Maybe, with smaller time steps, it 

would work better. 

MR. FAYE: It could. It may. I definitely did try 

that, but I'll definitely try it again. 

DR. KONIKOW: Yeah. 

MR. FAYE: I'm open for any -- I'd like to have that 

rewetted. I really would. 

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 

DR. LABOLLE: My experience has been, like Lenny's 

suggesting, decreasing the time step -- 

MR. FAYE: Right. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- but you can also -- if you want to 

get that to converge, another helpful item is to use a 

solver with a dual-convergence criteria. So in other 

words, you'll have convergence criteria for the outer, 

nonlinear loop, in which things are -- 

MR. FAYE: That's the PCG solver. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- which you can -- which you can -- 

no; not the PCG. It will be the -- actually, it will be 

one of the latest solvers that Mary Hill released. I 

forgot which one it was. It's the only one with the dualconvergence criteria. 

MR. FAYE: Okay. 

DR. LABOLLE: I can send you one for the PCG if you 

want. I have one. 

MR. FAYE: Oh, that'd be great. 

DR. LABOLLE: But the nonlinear loop, you set its 

loose convergence criteria, and you can set the linear 

solver. You know, it's a very strict convergence 

criteria, and the combination of the two allows you to -- 

MR. FAYE: To rewet? 

DR. LABOLLE: No. What it allows you to do is to 

solve a confined flow problem as an approximation 

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 

essentially is what you end up doing because really you're 

solving a confined flow problem -- 

MR. FAYE: Mm-hmm. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- at some point in time. And you're 

looping nonlinearly, but you -- 

MR. FAYE: Mm-hmm. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- at every point, you're making a 

confined approximation, essentially. Anyway, that allows 

you to converge. That's one issue. And another comment I 

have is on your calibration, recognizing that it's 

preliminary, but I noticed that if I were to probably fit 

a line through the scatter points there that it would 

probably have showed less of a gradient. And I think 

that -- 

MR. FAYE: You mean the scatter line? 

DR. LABOLLE: Yeah; exactly -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- and then the one-to-one. 

MR. FAYE: It would -- 

DR. LABOLLE: And so the implication being that your 

heads up here -- 

MR. FAYE: Mm-hmm -- are too low? 

DR. LABOLLE: -- out in front are lower than -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- you expect, and -- 

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 

MR. FAYE: Yeah; yeah. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- bringing them up -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- relates to this -- 

MR. FAYE: And that's the -- 

DR. LABOLLE: -- wetting and drying -- 

MR. FAYE: And that's the recharge problem too. 

DR. LABOLLE: Exactly. 

MR. FAYE: That -- I know that, and I'm hoping, 

again, like I say, that the baseline recharge, whatever we 

actually end up with is going to be more than 12. And 

it'll take -- and you'll see on the -- you'll see on the 

scatter diagram for the transient analysis the same kind 

of thing, I believe, although it's only the latter part of 

it up toward the top where we have some really decent data 

that it shows up. But I'll point that out. 

Here's the capacity data that we used. This is from 

the consultant's report, that I mentioned, in 1979. And I 

violated this with respect to one well. After like 1980 

or something like that, I violated that with respect to 

TT-53 or 52, I believe -- it's in the report -- just 

because I couldn't find any water anywhere else. I needed 

water to match the USGS criteria. 

It was one of those several periods -- several month 

periods where several well -- two wells were down. And I 

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 

just needed that extra water to match that annual rate, 

and so I violated that criteria at that time for Well 

TT-53, I believe it was, or 52. But that was the only 

time. 

All the other times, those capacities were honored to 

the limit. In other words, unless I had a note that the 

well was being pumped for 24 hours, all of the capacities 

that I used in the model to pump were less than those 

recorded there and in many cases substantially less. 

DR. POMMERENK: Bob? 

MR. FAYE: Yes. 

DR. POMMERENK: The map shows a lot more wells than 

you indicate here. 

MR. FAYE: Yes. 

DR. POMMERENK: Do you have the data for the other 

wells as well? 

MR. FAYE: A lot of them we do, Peter. 

Can we go back to that one, Claudia. Is it in -- is 

it in this module where I showed the -- yes. Keep going. 

There it is. 

Yeah. Yes. Yes, Peter. These TT-45, TT-29, TT-28, 

2-A, TT-55, TT-27 were all out of the -- out of operation 

by 1978. Okay? These are some of the original wells 

along with TT-26 that originally supplied the Tarawa 

Terrace network water supply treatment plant: TT-27, 

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 

TT-55, 2-A, 28, 29, and 45. And in the very beginning of 

Tarawa Terrace, from about 1952 to 1961, there were 

actually two wells, and Tarawa Terrace call -- or Camp 

Lejeune called them six and seven that were off the 

reservation. They were off-campus. They were about a 

mile and a half or so up Bell Forks [sic] Road. 

And what the operation was there, I have no idea how 

the water was actually connected to the network at Tarawa 

Terrace. I don't know. But they're officially listed as 

Tarawa Terrace supply wells in the records, numbers six 

and seven. And they're actually located on Bell Forks 

Road, and I have a crude map showing where they were 

located. 

So there's another actual two wells that actually 

don't show up here for the very early supplies. Now, you 

have to remember those -- all of these wells were off -- 

out of the system by about 1961 -- those ones. Except for 

TT-26, all of those wells were out of the system by 1961 

or '62. Okay? 

DR. KONIKOW: Why were they out of the system? 

MR. FAYE: Pardon? 

DR. KONIKOW: Why were they taken out? 

MR. FAYE: The early wells, Lenny, the way they were 

constructed had a tendency to sand up. The maintenance 

was a horrible situation. They had that, plus, I believe, 

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 

there were some network problems because of the lack of 

proximity to the wells, to the WTP. The WTP is located 

about right there. 

And so they just -- they took those wells out of the 

system. They were low producers. I have records in 1959, 

indicating that they were very low producers and -- except 

for TT-26. And so in '61, they came in and put in a 

number of additional supply wells and took those all 

off-line, abandoned them. 

Thank you, Claudia. 

DR. POMMERENK: I have another question on that table 

that you showed earlier. 

MR. FAYE: The Von Oesen table? 

DR. POMMERENK: No; the capacity table. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. Could you go back. 

DR. POMMERENK: According to those numbers, they 

would have to meet their one MGD daily demand to 

 operate -- 

MR. FAYE: Easily; easily. 

DR. POMMERENK: -- three wells for 24 hours? 

MR. FAYE: Mm-hmm; easy. 

DR. POMMERENK: Or let's say six wells for 12 

hours -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

DR. POMMERENK: -- because the state of North 

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 

Carolina doesn't allow you to run your -- 

MR. FAYE: Right. 

DR. POMMERENK: -- wells 24 hours a day. 

MR. FAYE: Right. Well -- 

DR. POMMERENK: So how did you determine in your 

model which out of those seven wells -- did you just have 

them all run at a, you know, prorated capacity? 

MR. FAYE: No. What we had, Peter -- we actually had 

copies of tables from Camp Lejeune of their operational 

records. Okay? And the various columns of these records 

would show a pumping level, a static level, a pumping 

rate, operational notes about the well, whether the well 

was down, whether the well was -- where the pump was being 

replaced, things like that. And we have those on a 

monthly basis from January '78 through March of 19 -- or 

April of 1986. 

So the pumping schedule that is used in the model for 

each of the 204 stress periods honors those operational 

records 100 percent in terms of what wells were operating, 

what wells were not. I could see that what I just said is 

bothering you. What is that? 

DR. POMMERENK: No. I'm just wondering. So that's 

in the simulation. And I'm not a groundwater modeling 

person, but the simulations of those wells that you 

determined according to that operating schedules were 

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 

operated -- 

MR. FAYE: Mm-hmm; at that month. 

DR. POMMERENK: -- for the whole month. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. I had to. Yeah. 

DR. POMMERENK: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: That's our -- that's our minimum -- 

DR. POMMERENK: And at that capacity? 

MR. FAYE: No, no, no, no; because, I just said, the 

wells rotated. They were, like, on-line eight hours a day 

and off like 16. So if you -- if you use that capacity -- 

DR. POMMERENK: You were just -- 

MR. FAYE: -- you're assuming a 24-hour pumping 

period. 

DR. POMMERENK: No. It's understood. Thank you. 

MR. FAYE: Okay. Okay. So that's what I said. The 

pumping schedules in the model honor those capacities, 

such that the rate was always less -- 

DR. POMMERENK: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: -- than that capacity. 

DR. POMMERENK: It's understood. Thank you. 

MR. FAYE: Okay. And I mentioned that the USGS gave 

us average daily rates for various years. And the -- our 

-- the pumping schedule, Peter, also honors those rates 

from 1978 to '86. And then '87, you know, everything went 

to hell, and they shut it down. 

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 

And I mentioned the static water-level data. This is 

-- this is Well TT-26. This is what these data look like. 

These are the static measurements, unvarnished. That's 

what they are, and that's typical of all of the so-called 

static measurements for all of the supply wells. 

Okay. Given the schedules, given the data that I've 

talked about, that's the scatter diagram for the transient 

analysis. And these data here -- oh, why do I do that? 

Thank you, Claudia. 

These data here are -- for the most part, a lot of 

these or the majority of these are the monitor-well data 

that we had for the early nineties in various parts of the 

-- of Tarawa Terrace. Almost -- and these are all of 

these so-called static water levels that we just 

discussed. 

These are the accurate measurements here. And we 

have a situation where, for example -- and I don't 

understand this at all. Like, for example, like, at 

TT-30, which is near TT-26 and TT-25, all of a sudden in, 

like, about 1980, the static water levels just go up and 

stay there. And the well is running. The well is 

operating, and I don't know what happens. Then it just -- 

water levels rise, and it stays there. Not only is that 

pump -- is that well operating, but it's near two other 

operating wells. And yet -- but those numbers are in 

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 

there. We didn't -- I didn't selectively disregard any of 

the data at all. It's all there. 

DR. JOHNSON: Bob, you need to kind of wrap this up, 

please. 

MR. FAYE: Okay. We're almost done. And I'll just 

show you a couple of the results. This is TT-26. That's 

the observed -- so-called observed static and the 

simulated. There's TT-31, -52, -67. And there's the 

stress period '84, when TT-23 was operating and just very 

rapidly that -- and we've just done some very preliminary 

advective transport simulations. And let me go through 

that. 

There's our water budget for the stress period '84. 

There's our recharge. It was 12.8 inches a year, what 

went into storage. That's induced recharge from Northeast 

Creek, which would have been brackish water; our well 

pumpage, and that honors the USGS rate for 1984; the 

discharge of Northeast Creek; discharge of Frenchman's 

Creek; and change in storage. 

Advective transport, I just basically did several 

things. We -- I seeded the cells or one or two cells 

right next to ABC One-Hour Cleaners to see where they 

would end up. Because of the -- because of the 

contaminant extent that went north and west of ABC 

Cleaners that we saw on the maps before lunch, I put 

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 

particles in 600 feet west of ABC Cleaners along Lejeune 

Boulevard. That's State Route 24, and I looked at the 

time of travel to the Tarawa Terrace supply wells of 

interest. And I came up with an explanation for the 

occurrence of PCE at Well TT-23, which is that isolated 

section to the south that we looked at in the maps 

earlier. 

When we seeded the particles right in the immediate 

vicinity of Tarawa Terrace -- of the ABC One-Hour 

Cleaners, all of them were captured at TT-26; everything. 

The -- none of the other supply wells captured anything 

for this particular stress period '84, which relates to 

December of 1984. When we went a little bit west of ABC 

One-Hour Cleaners -- and this is after 10,000 days, by the 

way -- indeed, TT-23 captured particles that were seeded 

west of the ABC Cleaners. 

DR. LABOLLE: Bob, are you running the hydraulic 

static then? Because you keep mentioning the stress 

period in '84, but then you run it for 10,000 days. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

DR. LABOLLE: Can you elaborate? So steady-state 

hydraulics, transient? 

MR. FAYE: The gradients, velocities, and whatever 

relate to that one stress period, stress period '84. 

DR. LABOLLE: That would explain probably the sole 

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 

capture of contaminants in a single well. 

MR. FAYE: Well, actually -- 

DR. LABOLLE: If you consider all the pumpage, you 

tend to have things -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. It could bounce around. Yes, it 

could; in reality, yeah. I also did it for other stress 

periods, but I came up with slightly different 

configurations in terms of drawdown from the, you know, in 

the system. And TT-26 captured everything, always 

captured everything when -- but, again, that's a simulated 

of continuous pumping. But it captured everything that I 

put in right in the immediate vicinity of ABC Cleaners. 

It captured everything. It always went there. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Were these all seeded in the top 

layer? 

MR. FAYE: Some of them were. One experiment seeded 

Layer 3, which is the River Bend unit. And that's where a 

lot of the contaminant was -- has been observed. And I 

also seeded Layer 5, which is the lower unit of the upper 

Castle Hayne aquifer. And there was a little bit of 

contamination observed in that layer as well from the 

field data. So I seeded both layers. 

DR. KONIKOW: Why didn't you seed layer -- the top of 

Layer 1? That's where the contaminants reached the water 

table. 

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 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. The -- that's a good question. The 

-- at that time, the Tarawa Terrace, when the data were 

collected, all of the -- all of the contaminant was below 

that particular layer. And that was -- that was when I 

was having problems with the cells drying out too, Lenny, 

in Layer 1. And that's up in the highland areas with 

Layer 1 and Layer 2. So I ended up -- I ended up seeding 

Layer 3. 

DR. WALSKI: The fraction of the time was 26 on? Is 

it run like 80 percent of the time, or did it run 70 

percent of time on average? 

MR. FAYE: That, I really don't know, Tom. All I 

know that it probably rotated -- 

DR. WALSKI: Okay. So -- 

MR. FAYE: And so didn't run 100 percent of the time. 

 DR. WALSKI: So therefore, you can explain possibly 

some of this water getting past it by the fact that, if 

you took real, like, hourly time steps for a change, the 

hydraulics would then shoot past it and -- 

MR. FAYE: And that's right; that's right. That's 

right. And there's even a better explanation, I think. 

Okay? And that's this right here. If you seed -- there's 

another well down here, TT-54, right here. And TT-23 is 

actually right here, and if you look at the capture zones 

of TT-26 and TT-54, you can see right in this area that 

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 

they're very close to one another. So when the well -- 

when TT-26 is shut down for any reasonable period of time, 

probably the capture zone for TT-54 moves over into part 

of the capture zone for TT-26. 

Also, this is a highly contaminated area right in 

here. This is a much less contaminated area here. So 

even if this situation here persisted through time 

constantly, I think you may also have had some exchange of 

mass along concentration gradients from the highly 

contaminated area to a lesser contaminated area. And it 

would end up in the capture zone of TT-54. 

Now, you say, how did well -- well, this -- you have 

to understand that TT-23, at best, only operated for about 

a year. And TT-23 is right here. And in the DPT analyses 

that we have, there was a low-level PCE contamination 

throughout all of this area here. 

So my conclusion was that one possible explanation 

for the occurrence of PCE at TT-23 was not that TT-23 

pumped for six months and was able to capture PCE that was 

in the general vicinity of ABC Cleaners, but rather over a 

period of time -- TT-54 began operation in 1961. But 

rather over a period of time, you had intermittent capture 

of PCE by TT-54 that ended up creating this low-level 

contamination in this particular area of the Tarawa 

Terrace campus or housing area. 

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 

And then in 1984 when TT-23 was actually turned on 

for a short period of time, there was a resident PCE in 

the aquifer that was induced into the well. That's one -- 

that's my explanation, and I'm sure there's others. But 

that's my explanation for the occurrence of PCE in Well 

TT-23. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Quick question. In terms of -- I 

want to connect this one to the pumping capacity chart 

from Van Oesen. Looking at those capacities for the late 

seventies, it appeared that if I summed up the capacities 

for the TT-26 area, there are the three wells up there -- 

MR. FAYE: Mm-hmm. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- and then for the cluster that's 

down in the development that there was a significantly 

larger net capacity for the southern cluster than the 

northern cluster -- 

MR. FAYE: No. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- is that accurate? I mean, it was a 

partial record. 

MR. FAYE: It's as accurate as I know it. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: No. What I'm saying is my 

assessment, since I only saw this table rather than the 

entire simulation set of data. In terms of what you 

simulated, did you actually have twice as much pumping 

from the southern cluster of wells than from the northern 

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 

cluster? Is that roughly the division? 

MR. FAYE: Oh, I see; because of the -- because of 

variations that I made in the pumping schedule to honor 

those two criteria that we talked about; yeah. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Because of capacity -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. Mm-hmm. And -- but, again, now, 

Dave, you have to understand that there would be months 

when these -- some wells were out of -- 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Sure. 

MR. FAYE: -- operation. So I had to increase the 

pumpage at other wells to make sure I could maintain that 

rate. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: No. I understand. I've got that 

right. I got how it worked. 

MR. FAYE: Great; okay. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: But I'm just trying to get a sense 

for -- a simplified sense because there's an awful lot of 

material here. 

MR. FAYE: Okay. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Basically, you're pumping twice as 

much down here, generally speaking -- 

MR. FAYE: Right. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- than up there? 

MR. FAYE: Right. But if you -- and I -- what I also 

looked at the simulated capture zones for all of those 

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 

wells. And they're all deflected up to the northwest 

except for TT-54. Okay? These wells down in this, 

they're all deflected up here -- 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Mm-hmm. 

MR. FAYE: -- rather than giving any competition to 

TT-54 or TT-26 up there. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Mm-hmm. 

DR. LABOLLE: Did you look at the sensitivity of the 

simulated capture to vertical hydraulic conductivity at 

all? 

MR. FAYE: No; haven't done that at all. It's on the 

radar screen; just there's all kinds of sensitivities that 

we need to deal with. 

DR. LABOLLE: Yeah. It's been my experience in 

situations like this that it tends to be highly sensitive 

because what will happen is that if your source is seeded 

in Layer 1 and your vertical hydraulic conductivity is 

decreased, then the contaminant's going to migrate along 

more -- not in the ambient gradient, but more of an 

ambient gradient -- 

MR. FAYE: Right. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- than is affected by the -- 

MR. FAYE: Right. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- by the actual pumpage in the deeper 

layers, assuming these wells are screening deeper. 

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 

MR. FAYE: Right. Well, also, too, we're dealing 

with, in the real world, a heck of a contrast in 

densities. I mean, 1 to 1.6 and that -- none of this 

shows up in any of that simulation there. I mean, that's 

just strictly advective transport. 

Thank you very much. And I'm sorry that -- oh. 

Okay. 

DR. KONIKOW: When you talk about a density contrast, 

you're talking about -- 

COURT REPORTER: Please get on your mike. 

DR. KONIKOW: When you're talking about a density 

contrast, you're talking about pure phase? 

MR. FAYE: Yeah; absolutely; yeah. 

DR. KONIKOW: But we're not looking at the movement 

of the pure phase, are we? 

MR. FAYE: No. No. But, I mean, that's just -- I 

know it's a DNAPL. Okay? And that's what -- that's what 

the -- that's what it is: 1.6 in the laboratory. 

DR. LABOLLE: But not at these concentrations. 

MR. FAYE: No. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: I wonder if the hydrodynamics will 

drive it. 

DR. LABOLLE: Only near the source -- 

MR. FAYE: Right. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- might we have some kind of density 

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 

effects. 

MR. FAYE: And most of that is actually in the -- I 

mean, there is no -- the almost free product stuff is in 

the unsaturated zone at the source. And there's a map in 

your report that shows that. 

DR. JOHNSON: Well, thank you very much for your 

presentation, and -- 

MR. FAYE: Well, thanks for your forbearance. 

DR. JOHNSON: -- also thanks to the questions from 

the panel. Let's proceed. Morris, you had prepared some 

responses. Yes, please. 

DR. CLARK: I had one question. 

DR. JOHNSON: Of course. 

DR. CLARK: We had a side conversation before, 

earlier today, about the other sources of groundwater 

contamination that existed in the Camp Lejeune area, and I 

thought it might be useful for the panel to hear about 

some of that. 

MR. FAYE: You mean, like, in the Hadnot Point area? 

DR. CLARK: Well, in the Hadnot Point area. 

MR. FAYE: Am I going to steal your thunder on that, 

Morris? 

MR. MASLIA: No; no. 

MR. FAYE: Okay. Yeah. I'd be happy to as long as 

-- the -- as Morris mentioned this morning when we first 

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 

started the program, we deliberately chose Tarawa Terrace 

because, believe it or not, it's the simplest system that 

we had to deal. Okay? As he said, there's one source, 

and it's an identified source as far as the contamination 

of the groundwater is concerned. 

If you go south to the Hadnot Point area, you're 

dealing with dozens and dozens of sources of 

contamination, some relatively small, some off the radar 

screen, that have contaminated groundwater in a big way. 

A number of these sites have RI/FS operations ongoing 

right now in terms of remediation. We're looking at a lot 

of TCE, a lot of BTEX. It's kind of a mess. Okay? 

You're looking at -- you're looking at surface sources. 

You're looking at buried sources. 

You face the possibility of -- you face the 

possibility of a particular supply well capture zone 

collecting contaminants from several sources very easily. 

So that's an exceedingly complex condition to try to do 

what we're trying to do. And you sort of have to crawl 

before you can walk. And our thought was if we can be 

reasonably successful, create a technically defensive -- 

defensible product at -- ah, a Freudian slip -- product 

for Tarawa Terrace, then we may have a shot at doing 

something similar for the Hadnot Point area. Does that -- 

does that cover -- 

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 

DR. CLARK: But the chances of actually being able to 

do that, I gather, are marginal at best; right? 

MR. FAYE: I really -- I don't know one way or the 

other on that. I would just -- in fact, I don't even know 

how we would approach that, maybe just a single supply 

well at a time. Okay? I don't know. It's just -- we're 

just going to have to deal with that when the time comes. 

MR. MASLIA: Let me, if I might, qualify that because 

when Bob and I got together, again, we made the decision 

based on, you know, consulting work, the USGS work, and 

all that, that we had the best chance from -- for 

developing a framework and either before you even get to 

the modeling at Tarawa Terrace. And so that's some of the 

-- I guess one of the questions we've posed is: Do we 

extend that? And, again, it means going back to 

developing the geohydrologic framework again for Hadnot 

Point, which we -- I don't believe we've done at this 

point -- 

MR. FAYE: No; just for Holcomb Boulevard. 

MR. MASLIA: -- at this point yet. And so that's one 

of the issues we really want to discuss. Or is it just 

going to be so completely uncertain and variable that we 

may not be able to narrow any of the uncertainties, stuff 

like that? So Tarawa Terrace, we felt, was our best shot, 

given the time frame, given agency constraints, budgets, 

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 

and time lines for the epi study. Dr. Bove can address 

the study time frame and some of the pressures associated 

with that to try to get some answers in a reasonable 

amount of time. 

Am I on? 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes, you are. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. Okay. I'm a little shorter than 

Bob. It's happened all my life. I even have to look up 

to my son, so... 

In reviewing the premeeting comments and, of course, 

I've had a few days to look through them and hit more of 

the salient points. And they do bring up some gaps, if 

you will, that we need to address. But I wanted to give 

the panel a sort of a feeling that, again, we take these 

very seriously. Some of them may, in fact, change our 

approach or change our direction. 

So I wanted to try to see what general areas the 

comments from the panel got into and, you know, what our 

response -- obviously, in a generalized, given the time 

frame that we've put these in. So I will go through here, 

and I'm not sure if I've included that in your handouts or 

not, in your packets. If not, we can get the panel a copy 

of our generalized responses. 

But from the groundwater side, and, Doctor, did you 

just want me to end on the -- for the groundwater for this 

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 

morning and then -- 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes. 

MR. MASLIA: -- tomorrow we can or -- 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. On the groundwater, a lot of 

comments resided in the area of uncertainty of geologic 

and aquifer parameters as we've discussed thus far and 

what -- it looks like some mention of probabilistic 

methods, such as Monte Carlo, looking at realizations. 

And I know Dr. LaBolle has a lot of expertise in that area 

and has worked on some sites for ATSDR in that area. 

And that is something, I think, would be the next 

step. The question, I think, for the panel would be: In 

taking that as the next step, should that be the next step 

prior to doing any more refinement of the Tarawa Terrace 

model? Should we jump into probabilistic uncertainty 

methods now, rather than doing any more refinement on the 

Tarawa Terrace model? 

Secondly, some parameter estimation methods to look 

at sensitivities like vertical hydraulic conductivity 

relative to other parameters. Again, that is a direction 

we definitely need to go in and anticipate going in. As 

far as modeling boundaries and sources, source conditions, 

I think the best way may be to look at use of sensitivity 

analysis to assess the nearness or the impact of moving 

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 

that northern boundary further away from the source and 

seeing how much change it provides to the model, adjusting 

the boundary. 

Again, we have the contradiction, if you will, that 

you've got the DEM that I didn't get to mention. The DEM 

data that was contoured for us -- actually, North Carolina 

district office is who we sent it up to, to pull it off 

the DEM site and provided us with the 2-foot contours, 

but, again, based on that and the topo maps. But I think 

that would be an area of -- that we could at least try to 

address and looking at the sensitivity of the northern 

boundary with relation to what impact it may provide on 

the model. 

And the one question is: Would we see a bigger impact 

or a more pronounced impact if we go to the full fate and 

transport as opposed to just looking at the advective 

flow, which we're doing right now? In other words, you 

may find a changed impact when you go to the full fate and 

transport where you're looking at dispersive properties 

and start moving boundaries away from the ABC Cleaners' 

source. 

The other approach -- and I think this comes into if 

you want to put in the area of sensitivity analysis -- is 

we do have techniques. Actually, there have been some 

papers on that, developed out of the multienvironmental 

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 

media simulations lab at Georgia Tech, but they -- where 

they have taken observed concentration values and backed 

out source locations through use of genetic algorithms. 

And that's, again, maybe an avenue to explore, taking 

some of the observed values that we have, historical in 

nature, and seeing if, in fact, it backs out the source 

location that we are assuming to ABC Cleaners. And I 

don't know -- I don't want to put Dr. Aral on the spot 

there. But we've had some preliminary discussions on 

that. And as I said, that's another area that we may -- 

that perhaps, we should explore is using the observed 

data -- 

(Projection screens withdrew to the ceiling.) 

MR. MASLIA: I didn't -- is it time? You may have to 

touch the touch screen, Claudia. The touch screen may 

have timed out (laughter). Either that, or it didn't like 

the answer I gave. Okay. I don’t know. Okay. You may 

have to hit "dual projector" to do that. And if not, I 

don't know if Ann Walker or somebody out in the hallway 

can hear us. They may have to call somebody to come get 

us. But I'll proceed in talking as we go on. 

So those two areas of doing -- I'm not sure -- 

inverse modeling is not the correct nomenclature, but 

reverse modeling of going from the source, observed 

source, backing out. And that may also give us an 

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 

indication if, in fact, that source -- where we think ABC 

is too close to a boundary. 

The next groundwater, I've got fate and transport 

issues. And I know, Lenny, you brought that out that we 

mentioned fate and transport only provided advective, and 

it's been our intent all along to do a full fate and 

transport. And again, in the Tarawa Terrace area being 

PCE is the only known source that would give us a single 

constituent model. So we are -- definitely, that's on the 

plans. That's always been on the plans to do that. 

One of the issues I want to bring up -- and Bob 

mentioned -- some of the data that we get in pieces as far 

as production and things like that, although we've been at 

this for over a year, I think, more or less. For example, 

last week, I just got a pile of information: month-bymonth, raw water, finished water, production data from 

Camp Lejeune from 19 -- what was it? 

MR. ASHTON: 1980. 

MR. MASLIA: 1980 through 1986. 

MR. ASHTON: '84. 

MR. MASLIA: '84; month by month. And, of course, 

we've been asking for all data, so I'm saying it's slowly 

filtering in. It may take a more direct involvement of, 

you know, giving ATSDR staff or whatever to going into the 

vault, locating contract numbers, and things like that. 

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 

But this is new data that we just were provided with from 

the folks at Camp Lejeune. So again, that's in that 

critical period. What we really still need is the prior 

to the '78 information; '68 to '78. We're still looking 

for that. 

Let's see. So again, the advective transport were 

viewed as preliminary estimates; get the model working; 

any issues with -- as far as not model code, but 

implementation of the code that we could take care of at 

this end and then taking comments, feedback, from the 

panel. Again, at least we've got some basic parameters 

and basic numbers to then go into uncertainty areas, go 

into other more refinements of the model. 

So that's really the groundwater issues; a quick 

preliminary perusal from your comments that I saw, and 

that's the direction we're going in. And we will try to 

answer, you know, anything else. 

DR. JOHNSON: Did anything you just heard raise 

concerns, or is there anything that you heard for which 

you would give a strong endorsement? What I've heard from 

Mr. Maslia is a series of considerations, and all that's 

good. But is it something that really that you've heard 

you'd say, "This really ought to be something you pursue," 

based upon his responses? 

DR. DOUGHERTY: I think you should move the northern 

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 

boundary and skip the sensitivity. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Just do it. Topography does not 

define hydraulics, unfortunately. 

MR. MASLIA: And would you then just use a 

generalized, head-type boundary or inflow boundary 

since -- 

DR. DOUGHERTY: I'd have to look further north than 

the maps that I have here show me -- 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- so I can't answer it really. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. 

DR. WALSKI: Are there municipal wells, other things 

up north? 

MR. MASLIA: Oh, yeah. There's the city of 

Jacksonville is, you know, pumps the wazoo out of 

groundwater. And I think we uncovered some -- did we not 

uncover some documents when we first went to Raleigh about 

discussions back and forth between Camp Lejeune and the 

city of Jacksonville about -- 

MR. FAYE: For the period of time that we're 

interested in, the pumping at the city of Jacksonville is 

not an issue. They have for decades pumped from the 

Cretaceous aquifer system, which is well below the Castle 

Hayne units that we're talking about here and with no 

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 

effect on the Castle Hayne. 

Just most recently, they've applied for permits 

within the last year or so to develop wells in the Castle 

Hayne. But for the period of time we're involved in, 

Jacksonville pumping would not be an issue. 

What would be an issue would be a lot of older 

subdivisions and industrial areas and business areas north 

of there that back in the fifties and sixties and 

seventies, the period of time that we're interested in, 

would have been self-supplied. And I don't -- it would be 

just -- we could certainly look, but I wouldn't be too 

hopeful of determining or of finding out what kind of -- 

we would know less about those situations than we would 

about the Camp Lejeune pumpage. 

So that's the situation there in terms of the -- and 

that self-supplied pumping was almost invariably from the 

same aquifers that we're dealing with because they were 

shallower and they were good. They yielded good water to 

wells, and, of course, the businesses and the residences 

and everything loved that because it was much cheaper than 

going deeper. So that's what we're dealing with. 

MR. MASLIA: I've got half a screen -- half a room 

screen working, and we've got a number for the room 

operator. So we're trying to... 

DR. JOHNSON: Based on what's on the screen, we've 

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 

had one comment from David in terms of his view and strong 

recommendation. Does the panel have other recommendations 

based on what's on the screen or what you have heard? 

DR. KONIKOW: Well, I would look again closer at the 

vertical hydraulic conductivity, its relation to the 

horizontal, and also the hydraulic conductivity of the 

clay layers of the confining units. The values that you 

or Bob gave earlier just seem a little too high, relative 

-- you were talking about .2 feet per day, as opposed to, 

you know, maybe 10 or 15 in the aquifer. 

That -- for a clay confining layer, that just seems 

too high. And one of the things that might -- what you 

might find is that, as you make the vertical hydraulic 

conductivity lower and the hydraulic conductivity of the 

confining layers lower, your cell drying problem may go 

away. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. That's a good point, and you easily 

could be right. But the fly in the ointment there, Lenny, 

two things: The, admittedly, very limited lithologic -- 

good lithologic descriptions that we have of these 

confining units, yeah. They're clay, but they are very, 

very sandy. They are definitely sandy. And they're not 

real competent clays there, texturally. 

I mean, when you look at the drilling times and the 

drilling records, pha-phooonk, I mean, it's -- you know, 

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 

there's no -- there's no slowing down at one -- at a clay. 

So they're leaky. They are very definitely leaky. We 

haven't done any kind of sensitivity analysis at all on 

the anisotropy or the horizontal hydraulic conductivity. 

But this is not, you know, this is not a -- these are not 

real competent confining units at all. Okay? 

MR. MASLIA: I, actually -- and this is part of our 

question, so I don't know if you want me to pose that now. 

Dr. Johnson, I'll let you go down the list. But I'll just 

throw it out there, and then you can decide. I'm not 

usurping your power as the Chair. 

DR. JOHNSON: I have no power as the Chair, nor do I 

want any. But I am fully committed at some point today to 

start down this list of questions, and we will do that in 

the not-too-distant future. Are there any other points 

here of emphasis from the panel on Morris' presentation? 

Yes, Vijay. 

DR. SINGH: I think it was pointed in prepanel 

meeting discussion as well as during the presentation. I 

think that there has to be a better accounting of 

recharge, especially when you are doing the transient 

groundwater modeling because recharge constitutes the 

input. And if your input is not properly accounted for, I 

don't think -- I don't think you will be able to do as 

good a job in groundwater modeling. And I think that may 

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 

also partly explain the problems that you're encountering 

in the convergence. 

Dr. FAYE: You're exactly right. I mean, we have 

recognized that, and I know it sounds kind of lame. But 

the actual truth is that we just haven't had a chance to 

really address that issue in a lot of detail, but I fully 

agree with you. And hopefully, that will solve a lot of 

these problems. 

DR. SINGH: And the other point that I think it will 

be important to also evaluate the reliability of the model 

results, and this is particularly useful from the 

standpoint of giving the information to the public. 

MR. FAYE: The reliability of what, sir? 

DR. SINGH: The reliability of your model result, how 

-- what level of credence can you really put, given all 

the uncertainty associated with your hydrogeologic 

description, your parameter estimation, you know, 

groundwater conceptual assumptions, and a whole host of 

other things. I think it's very important to -- 

MR. FAYE: To qualify. 

DR. SINGH: -- give the level of confidence -- 

MR. FAYE: Right. 

DR. SINGH: -- or the confidence bends to the model 

results so that -- so that the public can have some 

confidence -- 

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 

MR. FAYE: Absolutely. 

DR. SINGH: -- in the results that you are giving. 

MR. FAYE: And that should not be a qualitative 

assessment. That should be a quantitative assessment as 

much as we can do, and I fully agree with you. 

DR. JOHNSON: In that same vein, I asked a question 

earlier about validity of the EPA models, and to my 

knowledge, they're quite good. So I'm not -- I don't have 

any agenda here other than the fact to say to you that the 

National Academy of Sciences has begun a very serious 

study of the EPA system of modeling and validity of 

specific models. Now, I do not know how far into that 

study they have gotten, but I surely do know that they are 

doing that at the request of EPA, which is quite 

commendable. 

MR. FAYE: Well, let me just say that, first of all, 

the USGS, the mother and daughter of Modflow here, which 

is our simulator, they have exceedingly rigorous standards 

for qualifying their codes, number one. And typically, 

Dr. Johnson, the way this is done, they -- you recognize a 

standard groundwater problem that can be solved 

analytically. And then you pose that problem to the 

numerical code and see -- and compare that result against 

the analytical results. And I can tell you that that was 

done with a great deal of rigor by the USGS, and the 

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 

results were highly successful. 

DR. JOHNSON: I have a couple of administrative 

questions, Morris. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. 

DR. JOHNSON: The panelists have provided a set of 

written comments, premeeting comments. My question is: 

Will these be made part of the public record? 

MR. MASLIA: They will be in the -- in a refined -- 

and when I say "refined" -- grammar and otherwise --- as 

part of the report -- the report about the meeting 

summary. Our past experience has been, like in Dover 

Township, they were included as an appendix to the report. 

DR. JOHNSON: This is going back to Dr. Singh's 

comment this morning about the transparency of all of this 

effort. It would seem quite meritorious to have these 

part of the public record, whether it's the record of this 

meeting or some other source. Does any panelist object to 

having his comments made part of that record? Do you want 

time to "correct your premeeting comments," knowing now 

that it looks like they'll be in the public record? You 

should be given that privilege. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: I'd like the opportunity to go back 

and just check. I don't have a problem with the 

principle. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. 

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 

MR. MASLIA: Well, what will happen, based on our 

modus operandi from the past is that a draft meeting 

summary report will come out with your comments in the 

appendix. And each panelist will be given a copy of that 

draft meeting summary to correct their comments, see if 

it's misquoted, or anything else through our contractor, 

Eastern Research Group. And then once they hear back from 

you -- yea or nay or change page so-and-so -- then that 

will become a final meeting summary report. And that will 

be published and, as Dr. Singh's asked, put on the Web as 

well. 

DR. JOHNSON: Does ATSDR plan to provide an answer to 

each of these questions? 

MR. MASLIA: As closely as we can. In other words, 

some of the questions were -- the same questions were 

asked by multiple panelists. That's what I'm trying to 

say. I have not thought out yet -- if you're asking me 

going down each comment, you know, Panelist No. 1, you 

know, has ten questions. Do we answer those specifically, 

then go to Panelist No. 2, even though there's a 

repetition -- may be a repetition. 

DR. JOHNSON: All right. That's just an 

administrative detail, you know. It's called "ditto" or 

something like that. 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

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 

DR. JOHNSON: But do the panelists feel the need for 

having an agency response to what would strike me as 

rather seriously thought-through questions? What are your 

expectations? I don't want to push something forward 

that's not palpable. 

DR. POMMERENK: For me, personally, if I see that my 

comment has been addressed in a follow-up report -- you 

know, this is obviously a draft. If the final has those 

questions addressed because, you know, some of the 

questions were simply due because I could not find the 

answer immediately. If they were addressed now, for 

example, that would be fine, but if it's something else, 

or... 

DR. JOHNSON: But there's another group of people who 

might profit from a reply, and that's the public. 

DR. POMMERENK: Yeah. 

DR. JOHNSON: I mean, here's a serious question from 

Dr. Clark. Number 5, what kind of errors might be 

inherent in these assumptions? Should that be answered 

and made part of the public record? 

DR. WALSKI: I think that as long as they have 

addressed the substance of the comments, I don't think 

it's really a good use of resources to be going through 

question by question. It seems like that's excessive. As 

long as they substantially respond, I think, and 

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 

incorporate it in the report, that would be satisfying to 

me. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: For myself, they weren't -- were not 

prepared for the expectation of a point-by-point response 

because they were prepared to inform the agency about some 

of the issues that were on my mind that would be useful to 

hear about here. They were to prompt discussion as 

opposed to elicit responses. There are some that, 

certainly, are in that other category, but I think we've 

heard many responses; not all, but many. 

DR. JOHNSON: I would offer the opportunity at 2:30 

when the public addresses us to make comments on that same 

subject. But I think you have a sense from the panel that 

it might be -- it might be an overreach to provide a kind 

of point-by-point response to their premeeting questions. 

MR. MASLIA: I thank the panel for clarifying that. 

Tom, your point is well taken about agency resources in 

general, but I think there are some points specific, like 

the boundary issue. I think that's a specific answer or 

approach that we've discussed here. But others will be 

generalized, and as Peter said, if he sees it in the final 

report -- 

DR. POMMERENK: Yeah. I'll -- 

MR. MASLIA: That's sort of the approach that we used 

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 

in Dover Township. We used a similar set-up with several 

panels. And the final report did either allude directly 

to some issues that were brought up. 

DR. POMMERENK: Yeah. Many of my questions were -- 

they're clarifications questions -- 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

DR. POMMERENK: -- where I was not clear -- 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

DR. POMMERENK: -- and you -- 

MR. MASLIA: We appreciate -- I appreciate another 

set of eyes or ten sets of eyes looking over our shoulders 

to help us see the light of day. 

DR. JOHNSON: Well, thank you. Let's take a 15-

minute break, and when we return, we will start with the 

specific issues and questions for discussion. 

(Whereupon, a recess of approximately 11 minutes was 

taken.) 

MR. MASLIA: One issue: For our working lunch 

tomorrow and -- we're going to this place called -- or not 

going to, but we're going to order several platters of 

Roly Poly sandwiches, which include anything from monster 

veggie, California turkey, roast chicken, and all that 

sort of stuff; a variety of that. And so what the ladies 

up -- well, there's Ann right there -- need to know by the 

end of this afternoon is how many people want to 

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 

participate in that. It's a volume thing. And the price 

is based on the volume of whatever we order so -- and then 

they'll -- based on that, then tomorrow morning, they'll 

pass around envelopes to everybody, and you can put your, 

you know, five or six bucks in there. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: When we do that, do you want us to 

raise our -- just raise our hands and get a head count 

now? 

MR. MASLIA: Well, this afternoon, maybe, sometimes 

-- I don't know if we're taking another quickie break or 

whatever at some point. Ann. 

MISS WALKER: Tell me if you're not going to do it. 

MR. MASLIA: Oh, well, that's -- who doesn't want to 

do it? And that includes any people in the audience and 

public as well. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay? 

MISS WALKER: Okay. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. 

MISS WALKER: I don't see any no's, so we'll just 

count. And then tomorrow morning, you can see Joann and 

give her some money. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. It's all yours, Dr. Johnson. 

DR. JOHNSON: Well, let's turn to the questions that 

the agency posed that are specific to the groundwater 

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 

presentation. As I count them, there are eight questions, 

and there may be others that arise during the course of a 

discussion. 

First of all, based on groundwater-modeling results 

presented, what modifications, if any, should ATSDR make? 

Who wants to take the lead on answering that, as I look 

around the panel? Let me warn you, I teach, so I know how 

to pick them (laughter). 

DR. DOUGHERTY: I'm in the front row. 

DR. JOHNSON: I know when I see people hunkering 

over. Robert. 

DR. CLARK: Okay. I guess one of the -- one of the 

questions I had goes back to the relative importance of 

the work that's being done now versus the other 

contamination sources in the system. And would it be 

better to devote some resources to understand the relative 

impact of that, particularly on the epidemiologic results, 

as opposed to spending a lot more resources in refining 

the existing model? And I'm not clear on that. I don't 

have a clear feeling. It's a very impressive technical 

effort, but I'm not sure that it gets us very far as far 

as understanding what the other sources might be and what 

the impact might be. 

DR. JOHNSON: Eric. 

DR. LABOLLE: Yeah. I would like to add to 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 

it's not clear to me yet the role of the groundwater model 

in the whole simulation process. And what I mean by that 

is some of the discussions we've been having over lunch 

and such and looking at this time-line chronology that's 

presented here and I'm looking at when the Tarawa Terrace 

wastewater treatment plant came on-line and when it was 

closed down. 

And it looks like, you know, the contamination from 

the various wells is mixed at a single point, and it would 

be useful, actually, to have some kind of discussion at 

some point -- maybe perhaps tomorrow or something -- on 

the ranges of concentrations within these different wells 

and how much we really gain with additional detail in the 

groundwater model. 

So I think -- I think any recommendations should be 

preceded with some further understanding of its role and 

how much is going to be garnered from additional work in 

that regard. 

DR. CLARK: Another variation on that, too, is the 

amount of resources that are available to do the study and 

how does it take away from other type -- other parts of 

the study, which might actually have more impact, more 

importance. 

DR. JOHNSON: Morris; Bob; whomever. 

MR. FAYE: The objective of the groundwater model -- 

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 

flow model is to form the basis of a fate and transport 

analysis using numerical models that will ultimately 

result in a monthly value of concentration of contaminant; 

i.e., PCE at certain wellheads. I mean, that's from -- 

for the period -- was it 1968 to '85? That's the 

objective. I think that was clearly stated several times. 

Now, if that's not a tenable objective, it would be nice 

to know that in your opinion. But that is the objective. 

DR. KONIKOW: Based on your groundwater modeling so 

far, you're really starting in 1978 or '79 -- 

MR. FAYE: Right. 

DR. KONIKOW: -- and so what's -- how do you hope to 

cover the period back through 1968 or so -- 

MR. FAYE: Good -- 

DR. KONIKOW: -- when the epidemiological data is 

starting? 

MR. FAYE: Good question. The reason we did the '78 

to '94, as I said, was because that's when we had some 

water-level data that we could actually pay attention to. 

Probably between 1952 and 1978, we may have a grand total 

of two or three dozen water-level measurements in 

comparison. Okay? 

We also only have discrete -- a discrete window for 

about, oh, six or seven years, periodic nonconsecutive 

years; a discrete window in terms of a published value of 

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 

the -- of the quantity of water, the total quantity of 

water treated. We have another half a dozen references 

for different years in that interim, relating to well 

capacities and what wells were operational. The well 

capacities do change with time. 

The flip side of that is that for most of that period 

-- and certainly the USGS data there for the -- for the 

pumping information from '75 to '86 indicate that within 

plus or minus 10 percent of about -- of .95 MGD that the 

average annual rate doesn't change that much. And that's 

because Tarawa Terrace, the housing units, were occupied 

just about 100 percent all of the time, 90 to 100 percent 

all the time. So we shouldn't be looking for a lot of 

variation. 

We do have enough data now with the additional 

information that Morris discussed a few minutes ago. We 

do have enough data now, I believe, to make some sense out 

of monthly variations and pumping over a long period. And 

we can apply that information backwards in time as well. 

And that's kind of the summary of the suite of information 

that we have available to us, Lenny. 

DR. KONIKOW: As far as exposure goes, though, 

there's no -- 

MR. FAYE: No. That -- that's historical 

reconstruction. I mean, that's -- we do know -- we do 

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 

know the -- within a year of the beginning of operations 

of ABC Cleaners, we know that they used only PCE during 

their whole period of operation. That's it. 

MR. MASLIA: Based on suggestions also -- and this 

gets into, I think, Bob's question about resources and 

staffing. But, actually, I think another part of our 

effort or a more intense effort will be on data discovery. 

That appears to be a key factor, and I think going back 

to, like, tax records, maybe trying to refine the actual 

use of the PCE at ABC Cleaners. 

And that calls into, as far as an answer in terms of 

agency resources, that's a two-part answer, and I think 

you can appreciate this being a former government employee 

yourself. As far as the, how shall I say, funding-part 

issue, I believe the funds are there. Okay. They've been 

there this past year while we've been doing fieldwork and 

that. The other side of the equation is the staff of 

personnel. That is not there. Issues of do we have 

enough staff -- and let me get into that. 

As we discussed at lunch, unlike with other state 

programs that ATSDR has, we have no cooperative agreement 

with the state of North Carolina. We used that very 

heavily in Dover Township, New Jersey being a state. So 

that alleviated the need if we needed people to go and do 

some historical record search or do some detailed sitting 

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 

on site, so to speak. We actually had a field office over 

there. 

So that assisted us. We don't have that option in 

this situation. So that means if I want to spend the next 

month, which maybe I'm just taking a month out of my hat, 

and doing "data discovery," going into the files at Camp 

Lejeune or something, somehow our project has to come up 

with a warm body to do that. 

So while the funding may be there, the people are not 

there. And that's a consideration, I think, with 

recommendations, obviously, from the technical staff that 

management may need to look at that. If we say it appears 

to be a consensus of the panel -- I haven't taken a vote. 

That's -- Dr. Johnson probably will try to do that later 

on. 

But if data discovery, refining our chronology, our 

operational history, and things of that nature to pinpoint 

specific lack of information that we have now is a -- 

should be a focus of our continued effort, then that's 

something we have to address, I think, as a division, as 

an agency. So hopefully, that's addressed your question. 

Is there a follow-up, or is there... 

DR. JOHNSON: Well, what I hear is a strong 

commitment on the part of the agency to continue the 

groundwater modeling and activities associated with that 

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 

effort. I also am hearing from the panel some concern as 

to whether that, perhaps, the depth of that should be 

pursued. Am I misstating the case here? Please, Tom. 

DR. WALSKI: What I would want to do as a starting 

point would just sort of do an overall classification of 

which areas we know were contaminated with this chemical, 

which ones we know were safe, and then which ones were -- 

and those you just sort of say, you know, these people 

were exposed, period, and these people were not exposed, 

and concentrate the modeling on areas that we're gray on. 

Do we have a marker for this easel here? 

MR. MASLIA: I've got -- these are drawing markers, 

but you can -- 

DR. WALSKI: Here. Oh, here's one. Okay. How am I 

going to operate this thing? Okay. There we go. 

(Drawing) It's sort of a thing like this with, you 

know, Terrace, Hadnot, Holcomb, 1952, 1972. You know, I 

have separate rows. 1971, 1987, and just draw these in. 

This one here is a -- this area where we know was bad 

here, we know it's cleaned up here because they shut the 

plant down, and we know that ABC Cleaners wasn't in 

existence before some date, possibly. So this we know, 

and we just want to focus the modeling in here to areas 

we're not sure. 

And like, Holcomb, we knew was pretty good most of 

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 

its life, but there are some periods where we were 

uncertain of. And this might be where you'd look at some 

modeling where it was unsure. And Hadnot, we know was 

pretty bad throughout all time and you know, until they 

went to some type of -- what ended the -- they put some 

more treatment in, right, some pump and treat? 

MR. FAYE: No, they didn't. They just took the wells 

off-line. 

DR. WALSKI: They took the bad wells off-line at some 

point. So we know that after this point you're okay. But 

here we were in pretty bad shape. And then just focus in 

on the places where the models could tell you, you know, 

where it's critical because here you knew there was 

exposure. So you might want to do some kind of matrix 

like this as the next step before you got into, you know, 

doing -- just trying to model every single month of this 

thing where you know there's contamination in some of 

these areas. So why bother beating that when -- or you 

know that some of these weren't contaminated at that time, 

so why bother modeling those periods? 

MR. MASLIA: My -- I guess, at least, my experience 

and knowledge would be in a numerical model, such as 

Modflow or any of its varieties. We have to step through 

time. So we're going to have to time step whether we -- 

whether we use the information or not, we're still going 

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 

to have to time step it to get to the period of interest. 

Is that -- 

MR. FAYE: And also, in terms of the periods of time 

when no exposure was occurring, your point's well taken. 

But it would be so much more convenient -- say, for 

example, we know that Tarawa Terrace -- I mean, the ABC 

Cleaners, for example, they probably started operations 

around 1955. We know that. And the Tarawa Terrace wells 

went on-line in 1952. From a modeling standpoint, it 

would be so much better to start your -- to start your 

simulation in 1952 because you're starting out from a 

prepumping condition, rather than begin things in 1955 and 

try to guess at what the antecedent conditions were. 

So, you know, that's a decent trade-off. Three years 

is not a big deal. And we wouldn't have to do that, say, 

for example, on a monthly basis; those three years. So I 

think -- in certain context, I think your comments have a 

lot of merit. In that particular case, I'm not sure. 

DR. UBER: I think that I'm taking Tom's comments as 

more metaphorically, maybe, not exactly literally, on that 

-- on that matrix. Just to -- what I hear some of the 

panel saying is that we might like to hear the objectives 

of the groundwater modeling explained more in the context 

of the ultimate goal of the investigation, meaning the 

epidemiological study and the needs for that. 

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 

So, for example, if you knew that these nine wells -- 

I'm not saying this is the case. But if you knew that 

these nine wells were all blended together and served 

Tarawa Terrace residents during a certain period, then 

that means that the groundwater model is really predicting 

the blended sum of those waters from those nine wells. 

And the -- and if you do sensitivity analysis, such that 

it doesn't really affect very much the blended water over 

time from those wells, then you -- you know, if that's the 

case, if that's insensitive to those assumptions, then 

those assumptions are not necessary to nail down any 

further. 

Whereas, those same assumptions might have impacted 

significantly the individual arrival times at certain 

wells or individual captures zones. So, I mean, that's 

just an example. I'm not saying -- you don't need to 

comment on that particularly. But if that were the case, 

then that would be one example of making the objectives of 

the groundwater modeling, in my mind, closer to the needs 

of the epidemiological study because it brings it into the 

context of the exposure. Does that make any sense? I'm 

thinking not. 

MR. FAYE: Yes, it does. The fly -- well, yes, your 

comments do make a lot of sense. The situation as it 

exists is that the results of the groundwater-flow model, 

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 

which would provide monthly concentrations at the 

wellheads -- those are one step removed from the exposure 

at a street or a house in the -- in Tarawa Terrace because 

that -- those results are linked to the network, to 

EPANET, to the network model, which provide the exposures 

at the individual residences or streets or whatever. 

DR. UBER: Mm-hmm. 

MR. FAYE: So the results of the groundwater flow 

model are one step removed from where you're getting to. 

But that's the linkage that the network -- the network 

analysis is the linkage. 

DR. LABOLLE: So expanding on that -- Eric LaBolle 

here -- if one looks at the groundwater model and its 

results today, even though they're still in preliminary 

stages, can you make an assessment that some of these 

wells saw contamination for all time, for all the entire 

study period? 

MR. FAYE: That's a really good point, and I was 

hoping somebody would ask that. My gut feeling right now 

-- and I could be wrong. But my gut feeling right now is 

that TT-26 is the major player in the whole -- in the 

whole event from the time that there was a breakthrough at 

TT-26 of the PCE from ABC Cleaners until the times that 

the wells were shut down. I think most of the PCE 

produced at ABC was captured at -- only at TT-26 with 

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 

maybe some residual amounts at TT-25. 

There were -- we have that migration to the 

northwest. That was probably caused by local pumping 

there that we know nothing about as well as dispersion. 

But for all intents and purposes, the capture of PCE 

occurred at TT-26, and I think, you know, that that's 

going to be the end result. 

DR. LABOLLE: And is it -- can you state an opinion 

at this point in time as to a range of times that you 

think the contamination might have arrived at TT-26? Not 

to pin you down, but my point here is this. My point is: 

If you're dealing with a study period in which TT-26 saw 

contamination during the whole time, that might change the 

role of the groundwater model versus a study period in 

which the groundwater model is expected to predict an 

arrival curve to TT-26. The level of detail necessary to 

predict an arrival curve would be significantly different 

than one needed to predict, say, maybe just a boundary 

range of concentrations -- 

MR. FAYE: Yep. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- in which assumes -- 

MR. FAYE: Yes. That's good. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- inherent uncertainty. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. That's very good. You have -- you 

have several issues to address, okay, in that whole 

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 

context. If you have the arrival time -- I made an 

estimate with the advective transport simulation. It 

occurred about -- in about three years. Okay. So if we 

assume that PCE entered the -- got -- was actually being 

discharged to the septic tank at ABC Cleaners some time in 

1955, probably made it to the water table maybe a few 

months or a year later, you're looking at something around 

1959 when PCE started to -- and that's not accounting for 

dispersion. It might have gotten there earlier when 

dispersion effects are taken into account. 

Now, having said that, you have these other issues of 

retardation, biodegradation, and whatever that are going 

on in that interim -- in that whole period of time, say, 

from 1959 or whenever up to 1985 when that particular well 

was shut down and taken off the -- taken out of the 

network. 

So what the model would be attempting to do, okay, 

would be to address those issues of retardation, 

dispersion, biodegradation, whatever, decay; and in that 

interim period of time for that particular -- for that 

interval. 

DR. LABOLLE: The sense that I'm getting then is that 

the 15 years roughly -- or, say, 10 to 15 years that have 

elapsed there between the introduction of a source to the 

system and/or probable introduction of a source to the 

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 

system and the beginning of the study period sounds like 

sufficient time for the contamination to have arrived -- 

MR. FAYE: Oh, yeah. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- at TT-26. 

MR. FAYE: Oh, yeah; absolutely; absolutely. We 

would not begin -- or at least I would not think it would 

be appropriate to begin the model simulation -- the 

groundwater flow and fate and transport simulations in 

1965, which is the beginning of the period of interest to 

the epi study. We would want to be there before. We 

would be simulating conditions before that and then all 

the way through it. 

MR. MASLIA: One other issue because Bob and I have 

discussed this, and that's the issue of Well TT-23. And 

that, again, I think this is where the model can help 

refine our understanding. Well TT-23 was drilled after 

the shutdown or in anticipation of the shutdown of TT-26. 

MR. FAYE: No. It was '84. Well TT -- we have a -- 

we have an actual step-drawdown test for TT-23. I think 

it was in March of '83. So TT-23 was sitting there 

available. That was part of Tarawa Terrace's routine 

operation of bringing a new well on-line and probably 

taking an older well that had reduced yield off of line. 

And then all of a sudden, when they did the sampling 

while TT -- there was PCE that showed up in TT-23. So PCE 

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 

-- TT-23 never got a chance to be in operation probably 

for more than a year. But -- and frankly, I don't know 

how much importance the contribution of TT-23 had to the 

-- to exposure because it was only operated for such a 

short period of time. 

But I will say that it's been on everybody's radar 

screen as a point of interest, and I do believe that the 

only way you're really going to understand whatever the 

contribution was from TT-23, if it remains a major point 

of interest as it seems to be, would be through a -- 

through numerical simulation. 

DR. JOHNSON: Well, I think we've had a good 

discussion and some suggestions as to how the modeling 

work might be modified. It's certainly for the agency's 

consideration and final determination. But some 

interesting ideas were placed on the table, and we would 

ask that they be seriously considered by the agency. 

As an aside, I have not forgotten about the public 

session, and I plan to do that at 3:30. So those of you 

who wish to speak at 3:30, be prepared to do so. We will 

need your name, et cetera. To the extent possible, focus 

on what we're discussing today: the water-modeling issues. 

But anyway, at 3:30, we will do that. 

Let's continue on to Question 2, and, again, we can 

come back to any of these questions. I'm just trying to 

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 

get us through these series of significant issues. Number 

2: Should ATSDR use the same level of detail; i.e., 

50-foot cells and expand the groundwater model to include 

the Holcomb Boulevard and the Hadnot Point areas? If so, 

what level of increase in effort does the panel envision 

for this effort? Lenny, please. 

DR. KONIKOW: Well, a 50-foot grid spacing seems, you 

know, reasonable, but I think the approach that, you know, 

I would recommend and probably other people would 

recommend is do some grid-sensitivity testing. I heard 

someone mention that this morning. Try a 100-foot cell, 

and see if there's any difference. Try a 25-foot cell 

spacing, and see if there's any difference. If it doesn't 

make any difference, stick with the 100 foot. 

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right. 

DR. KONIKOW: If it makes a difference, depending on 

the nature of the difference, you probably want to go to 

the finer grid spacing. So it's hard to say if 50-foot 

spacing is the right one without looking at some 

sensitivity tests. So somewhere along the line -- and, 

again, this is one of the nice things about a graphical 

preprocessor based on a GIS-type system is that you can 

very easily change your grid spacing. And that's one of 

the things we'd certainly recommend doing. 

As far as expanding it to the Holcomb Boulevard and 

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 

Hadnot Point areas, I think it depends do you want to 

apply a transport model there or not. Do you want to, you 

know, look at the -- I mean, you're starting in just the 

Tarawa Terrace because that's simpler. So if you can't 

succeed there, then maybe there's no point going to the 

other systems. 

MR. FAYE: And that's -- that was the whole idea. 

DR. KONIKOW: Yeah. So I think you have to kind of 

see what the results are after a little more time. 

MR. FAYE: Good. Thank you. 

DR. JOHNSON: Other comments on this question? 

Vijay. 

DR. SINGH: I think you may also want to look at 

variable grid size. You may want to consider finer grids 

near the source and coarser away from the source. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. That's clearly -- that's clearly 

something that we intend to do. And as Lenny said, when 

you're using a GIS conditioner for your input arrays, why, 

it's really easy to do. It's not a problem, and that's 

something that we very definitely would look at or intend 

to look at. 

DR. JOHNSON: Any sense on what extra level of effort 

would be required? 

MR. FAYE: Not a whole lot. 

DR. JOHNSON: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure that's the 

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 

kind of thing a panel is equipped to come to grips with, 

but I speak only for myself. I haven't a clue as to how 

efficiently you work and other -- what equipment you have. 

MR. FAYE: My response was just to the specific 

notion of changing the grid dimensions. Okay? I mean, I 

didn't know you were touching on the overall issue. 

DR. JOHNSON: It's part of the question. 

MR. MASLIA: Let me just address this. The reason 

that question came up is looking at the, I guess, 

experience and expertise and different type of analyses 

that some of the panel members have been involved, I 

suppose we were looking at it based on their experience of 

saying, "Oh, no. That's going to take a completely 

separate project team. You know, that's going to take 

another three years, five years, or whatever based on our 

experience." 

And that's something -- an input that we need and to 

discuss with the epidemiologists as whether that increase 

in effort is warranted for the type of results that we may 

obtain. It clearly has been referred to on a number of 

occasions now. If, in fact, we're having some difficulty, 

although maybe success, in Tarawa Terrace in this level of 

effort now, expanding that difficulty at least an order of 

magnitude because of uncertainty and unknown in Hadnot 

Point and the variety of nonpoint specific sources, that 

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 

may be an area that we may say that the level of effort 

will not warrant the refinement in the answers that we 

need for Hadnot Point area. And that's really why that 

was posed, not looking for a specific person number or 

hour -- labor hours or anything like that. 

MR. FAYE: Could I say something? 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. 

MR. FAYE: With regard to the additional complexity 

that we're fairly certain that we would see at Hadnot 

Point, perhaps, an intermediate step or even a final step 

to simulating various concentrations at a great number of 

wells with numerous source areas would be analytical, 

rather than numerical, which would greatly simplify the 

situation in terms of analysis. But what would also be 

somewhat limiting in terms of the results that we would 

provide -- be able to provide for the epidemiological 

study. But it may be a very useful intermediate step. 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes. 

DR. CLARK: The answer -- it seems like the answer to 

this question somewhat answers the concerns I had on the 

first question. In effect, what you're doing with Tarawa 

Terrace, that's basically a pilot study to validate, 

develop groundwater-transport model; right? 

MR. FAYE: It's -- I would say it's perhaps a little 

further than a pilot study. We know that these things 

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 

have been done before. There's not a lot of mystery about 

it. More the issue is, yeah, we can do it, and we can 

give you an answer, but just how damn good is the answer? 

Okay? 

DR. CLARK: And so if you have success at Tarawa 

Terrace, then the potential for applying it to other areas 

increases, I suppose, significantly. 

MR. FAYE: Yes; sure. 

DR. CLARK: And so that basically is kind of the 

reason that you're taking that approach on the project. 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes, please. 

DR. UBER: Could I just follow up on that real quick? 

Could you clarify for me: Is the proposal -- I know we're 

talking about just the groundwater analysis now. But is 

the proposal to use Tarawa Terrace really, truly as an 

advanced pilot study but moving it from the groundwater to 

the water distribution through to the epidemiological 

conclusions prior to moving significantly or changing 

directions drastically for some of the other areas? 

MR. FAYE: That's yours, Ace. 

MR. MASLIA: That is -- our intent is to hopefully -- 

I don't want to say wrap it up -- but put some finality on 

our state of knowledge and conclusions we can make from 

the effort at Tarawa Terrace in terms of the groundwater 

fate and transport and the distribution side. That is the 

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 

-- as we've alluded to, we know we've got one primary 

well, TT-26. We've got some data gaps in historical or 

chronology. 

But as far as the hydrogeologic framework, we've 

defined that as far as modeling. When I say "boundaries," 

not the physical model of the boundaries, but where we 

should start our timing, stuff like that. We've got -- 

we're getting more well-production records. As I said, we 

just got some more in the middle eighties to fill in some 

gaps. So that's pretty much further along. I can't speak 

as far as the cases and controls. Dr. Bove can probably 

speak more on that if he thinks it's appropriate to 

discuss that issue. 

MR. FAYE: And there's also another major issue 

implicit in that -- in that question. And that is the 

actual linkage between the models. The results of the 

groundwater flow model I used as input into EPANET or some 

similar thing. And we want that to be as transparent and 

as fluid as -- no pun intended -- as fluid as possible. 

We don't want that to be a stop-and-start, really hardnose mechanical-type of operation. And so there's some 

issues there to be dealt with in terms of refining that. 

DR. UBER: So that's good. That actually reinforces 

the point, perhaps, of making a decision to try to do it 

all with Tarawa Terrace. It sounds to me like maybe 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 

team is not quite committed to doing that because there's 

some, maybe, uncertainty, reasonably, about the time 

frames of the, you know, getting all the control group 

together and doing all of that work. 

But I -- personally, I would be very much in favor of 

that approach, if it is feasible at all, because I think, 

you know, well, you always learn from doing it. And I 

think bringing this -- bringing that study to the end 

conclusion, even on a first-order basis -- end, meaning to 

some kind of integration with the epidemiological 

conclusions -- would be a good thing to add going into the 

other areas. 

MR. MASLIA: The other thing, if I might just jump 

the gun for either this afternoon or tomorrow's 

presentation on the water-distribution side, I alluded to 

earlier in my opening remarks that we do have an analysis. 

Claudia did a very good analysis on building use and 

building type and, you know, whether it's residential, 

family housing, industrial, car wash, and so on. And I'll 

show that later on either tomorrow or this afternoon, 

depending on the time. 

But what you will notice is obviously Tarawa Terrace 

is 90-plus percent family housing. Holcomb Boulevard is 

90-plus percent family housing with elementary schools and 

high schools. When you get down to Hadnot Point, it's 

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 

just the opposite. It's 90 percent plus industrial and 

other things and bachelor housing with maybe 5 percent 

family housing. Would that be about right, Claudia, 

somewhere around that? 

MISS VALENZUELA: Yeah. 

MR. MASLIA: Yeah; about like that. So that's the 

other -- we haven't gotten into that, but you'll see some 

maps on that. So that's the other consideration really 

from our standpoint. 

DR. WALSKI: When the distribution system 

measurements for PCE were made in Tarawa Terrace, what was 

the range of values at the tap? 

MR. MASLIA: PCE or TCE? 

DR. WALSKI: PCE at Tarawa Terrace, like, the range. 

Was it a huge range? Did it show tremendous variability, 

or was it basically, once you got it, you got it? 

MR. MASLIA: We've got a map with the chronology on 

them. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

MR. MASLIA: Here. We've got a chronology here. 

Here we go. Actually -- 

MR. FAYE: The concentrations at the tap were 

probably somewhat less to greatly less variable than the 

concentrations that we observed at the wellheads. 

DR. WALSKI: Because everything gets blended, and 

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 

 so -- 

MR. FAYE: Right. 

DR. WALSKI: -- it seems like, basically, once the 

system gets contaminated water in it, the people get 

contaminated water, and, you know, the amount that the 

model is going to tell you is, well, maybe they got 52 

instead of 54. But the fact is that once the plume hits 

the wells and they use the wells, everybody got the same 

thing in that system. That, you know, I'm just 

questioning how much more you're going to get by really 

refining the models. 

MR. FAYE: Don't know; don't know. I can't -- I 

couldn't -- I know that the concentrations at the 

wellheads vary by orders of -- by an order of magnitude at 

least. And I'm not -- I'm not sure that I'd be 

comfortable in going into detail even about a cause and 

effect of that. I don't know that. I haven't reasoned 

that out that well. I just -- that's it. I -- you know, 

that's the extent of the information. 

DR. LABOLLE: Particularly with regards to the 

distribution system model, I think that what's been raised 

here is quite important. If you're putting in a source 

and everybody has to drink that water because there's only 

one source in the system, which is the wastewater 

treatment plant, at least during a significant portion of 

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 

the time, if not all the time in the study period, then 

how does refining the model increase one's information on 

exposure? 

MR. FAYE: Well, for one thing, when we -- when we 

finally get to the point where we're able to deal with 

monthly recharge and we have some decent confidence that 

we're doing a good job there, you're looking at -- you're 

looking at orders of magnitude change and recharge from 

month to month. Okay? 

DR. LABOLLE: My question was with regards to the 

distribution-system model though. 

MR. FAYE: Oh, I'm sorry. 

DR. LABOLLE: But I have one for the groundwater too. 

MR. MASLIA: Let me -- if we assume that you've got 

several wells and they're all blended in at the treatment 

plant and then they go out into the distribution system 

and are up in the tanks and equally mixed and all that, 

then your point is everybody gets the same blended 

concentration of water; no question about that. 

We found a couple of things, and again, this is 

probably something we'll get into tomorrow or this 

afternoon. But we are finding, at least in the storage 

tanks, that it's not a complete mixed situation. This is 

based on some field testing that we did this past year. 

We're not sure if you're seeing last-in/first-out or 

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 

a compartmental-type issue in the tanks. We're testing 

that out, doing some sensitivity runs right now, so that, 

if you had in one given month one well running more than 

the other, either contaminated or not contaminated, and 

pushing that out through the treatment plant and then 

stored up in the tanks or whatever, you may not 

necessarily see that water coming out into the 

distribution, depending what's going on in the mixing in 

the tanks. 

DR. LABOLLE: Then in that case then, the study, you 

know, the detail would then focus on a very restricted 

portion of the system, that being the tank and one of the 

sources -- 

MR. MASLIA: Mm-hmm. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- which wells the sources were coming 

from? 

MR. MASLIA: That's correct. 

DR. LABOLLE: But then the rest of the distribution 

system, the detail and the level of analysis would have 

little effect then on exposure. Am I missing something in 

that? 

MR. MASLIA: Well, the only thing we're -- or we're 

trying to understand right now is we're still in the 

process, at least for present-day, trying to understand 

exactly how the tanks are mixing. We've instrumented some 

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 

tanks, and it's raised some additional questions. And I 

really can't, at this point, answer: Can we make some 

either simplifying assumptions or assume, given a certain 

input from the treatment plant, that this portion of the 

system received this slug of water or not? 

I think, perhaps, maybe the panel will see some 

insights from some of the data, more detail that we'll 

present either this afternoon or later tomorrow. Those 

are some good issues to bring up. 

DR. CLARK: Depending upon the variability on the 

input side, you could get blending in the system that 

would cause different levels of exposure to individual 

households too. So I guess it's those issues that you 

have to resolve. 

DR. LABOLLE: Yeah. Particularly if the treatment 

plant doesn't. You know, the treatment plant is 

delivering water out into various pipes into the system at 

that point, then the detail -- I could see the 

distribution system would become important. 

MR. FAYE: On the groundwater side, you would have an 

expectation of variability. We don't know how much. 

Depending on your rainfall, which would translate -- the 

way we're looking at recharge now would translate directly 

to recharge. You would have periods of time when you'd 

virtually have no recharge, probably extended periods of 

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 

time. And then you'd have other times when you would have 

just an excess of recharge. 

How this affects the -- would affect the variability 

of concentrations at the wellhead, we just don't know. 

And it -- is that the reason of the order of magnitude 

change in contaminant concentrations at the various wells? 

We don't know. But we do know that there is a great deal 

of variability in concentrations at the wellhead, just 

based on observations. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: I have one question for -- actually 

your comment and Eric's. Since you're preparing, planning 

to perform a fate and transport model -- 

MR. FAYE: Ultimately. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- ultimately. And this is a 

question about your preliminary thinking, and so it's 

subject to draft and revision and all these things as the 

project evolves. But the question is: How do you think 

you're going to handle the source? How is it going to be 

represented? 

MR. FAYE: Well, as Morris said, one thing that we 

have in the works is to use Dr. Aral's expertise at 

Georgia Tech. Are you familiar with CXTFIT? 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Sure. 

MR. FAYE: Okay. It's kind of a simplistic notion, 

but, you know, it's the same idea where you would actually 

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 

look at your observed concentrations in a "plume" and then 

be able to compute backwards and estimate a source 

concentration for a limited period of time relative to 

those observed conditions. 

We have data in 1985 that probably -- early 1985, 

that probably represents, goodness, for want of a better 

term, routine operating conditions, okay, at the -- at ABC 

Cleaners. And we're looking at 12,000 micrograms per 

liter there. The gentleman earlier made the point that 

there may have been a greatly increased rate of input into 

the system during Vietnam. 

And hopefully, hopefully, through the data discovery 

that Morris was talking about with the tax returns and 

whatever, we can get something of a handle on that. 

Obviously, it goes without saying, I mean, the source term 

is the -- is -- it's not all the eggs in the basket, but 

it's a good number of them. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: My question in particular was: Is it 

going to be treated as a specified concentration, or is 

there going to be -- or are you anticipating a process 

model for -- 

MR. FAYE: No. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- some dissolution process? 

MR. FAYE: I -- that, we haven't thought of yet. My 

-- right now, my thinking would be basically just a rate 

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 

at a -- at some concentration. Okay? 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Some of mass loadings? 

MR. FAYE: Yeah; right. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Let's stop at that point. I 

think we've -- the panel's given you some excellent advice 

and some perhaps new directions to consider: grid 

sensitivity, testing, et cetera, other ideas. Again, we 

can always come back to any one of these questions. 

The third question, before we have the questions from 

the public: Rather than developing three distinct 

groundwater-flow models, should ATSDR considering -- 

should consider developing one model? 

DR. CLARK: It sounds like the answer to that has to 

be no, given the complexity of trying to do that. 

DR. JOHNSON: The answer is no. 

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: It may be later. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: And then you have the choice of 

whether you do two and three or whether you expand one and 

two or incorporate two and three or whether it's a similar 

approach at that point. 

DR. LABOLLE: Where does the third one come in? 

That's actually where I'm confused. We have Tarawa 

Terrace. We have Hadnot Point. It's my understanding 

that the community in the middle wasn't receiving much 

contamination; is that correct? 

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 

MR. MASLIA: Actually, correct, unless we find any 

other information to the contrary. That was probably a 

rush to write questions down, but I suppose one -- when I 

was thinking also of three models, one way I was thinking 

back to my USGS days is where you have an overall model 

and -- one model for the whole area, which may be a 

coarser grid, or define some boundary flows or whatever 

and then you have the two refined areas. 

But from what our discussion this morning and this 

afternoon is going is, I believe, we'll be doing good to 

get at narrowing uncertainty or addressing uncertainty 

with the Tarawa Terrace area. I mean, I think there's 

some issues there that may, in fact, tell us, you know, 

don't go down the direction of the numerical model to 

Hadnot Point. 

MR. FAYE: Accept no. 

MR. MASLIA: What? 

MR. FAYE: Accept no. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. I think you got a clear 

answer on that one. We need to take about a fiveminute pause or so, so that our recorder can 

recalibrate her recording equipment. And then after 

that, we look forward to comments from the public, 

and then we'll resume with the rest of the questions. 

So take a brief break of about five to ten minutes. 

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 

(Whereupon, a recess of approximately seven minutes 

was taken.) 

DR. JOHNSON: We are at the point where we would be 

pleased to hear comments or observations from the public, 

and please come forward to the dais. Tell us your name. 

To the extent possible, we would ask that you summarize 

the significant points that you wish us to hear. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Good afternoon. 

DR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. 

MR. ENSMINGER: My name's Jerry Ensminger. I told 

you who I was earlier. I lost a child due to this 

contamination, and I have been deeply involved in this 

since 1997. Likewise, a retired major, Thomas Townsend, 

who I work very closely with and have worked with him for 

many years on this, and this following statement is a -- 

and questions is a combined effort between Mr. Townsend 

and I. And without further ado: 

Construction of the Tarawa Terrace housing area 

commenced in 1952 and, at that time, was owned by Spangler 

Real Estate Company. My family lived at Tarawa Terrace, 

3442 Hagaru Drive, from January 1955 to May of 1956, as 

cited in CLW-2982. In 1958, TT-26, the first of eight 

water supply wells, was constructed in Tarawa Terrace. 

The year 1961 saw the construction of an additional three 

wells: TT-52, 53, 54. Wells 27, 31, and 25 were 

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 

constructed in 1972, 1973, and 1980, respectively. 

Well 23 was constructed in 1984. However, this well 

was never put on-line or in -- never put into production, 

as PCE was discovered immediately following construction. 

This well is also described as TT-NEW WELL in the same 

documents. 

I provided you with a list of the supporting 

documents that support this statement. TT tap water was 

tested 27 May 1982 from seven wells less TT-23. PCE was 

found at 80 parts per billion and on 27 and 28 July '82 

retested with PCE at 76 parts per billion, 82 parts per 

billion, and 104 parts per billion. TT wells were sampled 

in July of 1984; TT-23 at 37 parts per billion; TT-25, 

trace amounts; and TT-26 had 3.9 parts per billion. No 

TCE was detected. 

Tap water in Tarawa Terrace was tested again on 5 

February of 1985. The analysis indicated PCE at 80 parts 

per billion, TCE at 8.1 parts per billion, and DCE at 12 

parts per billion. All Tarawa Terrace wells were 

disconnected from the water-distribution system on 8 

February 1985, and Wells TT-23 and 26 were closed. 

Four days later, on 12 February 1985, and again on 19 

February of 1985, water from the TT system was tested and 

determined to contain no VOCs. Unable to meet the 

increasing water demand without these wells, the Tarawa 

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 

Terrace water-distribution system was supposedly closed. 

None of the TT well data, installation or operational 

date, and contamination testing results can be confirmed 

by this reporter since Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune has 

not provided same after many FOIA requests submitted; no 

responsive documents. 

Question: If the TT water-distribution system was 

closed in February of 1985, where did the potable water to 

support some 1843 housing units and commercial 

establishments come from to fill that void? 

DR. POMMERENK: Can I answer that question? I 

believe, in 1984, there was a pipeline constructed from 

the Holcomb Boulevard treatment plant, and that pipeline 

connected directly to the raw-water tank. So you received 

treated water from the Holcomb Boulevard area. 

MR. ENSMINGER: In 1984? 

DR. POMMERENK: I believe so. I would have to check 

the numbers, but that's the approximate time frame that I 

recall from the... 

DR. JOHNSON: Come to a microphone, please. 

MR. FAYE: The records that I'm familiar with that 

we've obtained from Camp Lejeune and other sources 

indicate that only Wells TT-23 and TT-26 were taken 

off-line in February of '85, that the other wells in the 

system at that time continued to operate, probably, 

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 

through all of '85. We know for sure that the watertreatment plant was operating and processing water at 

least up to March of 19 -- 1987. There's a real question 

about 1986. My gut feeling is that the ex-TT-23 and 

ex-TT-26 at the Tarawa Terrace wells probably operated all 

through 1986 as well. 

Just with some corrections here to what this 

gentleman has said about TT-26, we have copies of notes 

from Mr. - a Mr. R. E. Peterson, who was an employee of 

the Lejeune facilities at that time in May of 1951, where 

he describes the construction and -- the drilling and 

construction of Well TT-26, TT-27 and 2-A. At that time, 

they were called Number 1 and Number 2-A and 2-B; 2-B was 

TT-27. So that's just a few comments there. 

Thank you. 

MR. ENSMINGER: And if you would, in your supporting 

documentation that I've provided you, CLW No. 1129 through 

1131 was an action brief prepared by the Chief of Staff of 

Marine Corps base and is dated 1 March of 1985. That's 

Colonel M. G. Lilley, who I have spoken with personally. 

And he gave a -- his action brief was -- the subject was 

"Alternatives for Providing Water to Tarawa Terrace Area." 

So if a pipeline was installed in '84, why are they having 

an action brief in '85? 

DR. POMMERENK: That's a good question. I was just 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
202 

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 

aware of the construction date of that pipeline. 

Obviously, my conclusion was that there was water supplied 

which may have not been started at that point. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Well, while we're speaking about 

that, the next part of the question: Action brief for the 

commanding general of 1 March 1985, which I just referred 

you to, had seven alternatives, ranging from hauling water 

in tankers or construct a new 8-inch line from the Holcomb 

Boulevard water-treatment plant, which was being upgraded 

from 2 million gallons to a 5 million gallon per day 

capacity, or turn on the contaminated wells that have been 

shut down if required to maintain adequate water levels; 

estimated cost: none. New water -- new line was 

installed, temporary auxiliary line, in June of 1985 from 

Holcomb Boulevard water-treatment plant to the TT 

distribution center. 

Question: Definitive criteria for describing -- 

describing operation of well status at Marine Corps base 

is confusing by using active, inactive, closed, abandoned, 

on-line, off-line, et cetera. CLW-2963, which you have 

there in your references, wells are taken off-line or out 

of service for short periods for maintenance; pumps are 

replaced; screens are cleaned; new data loggers installed. 

Too many reports from Marine Corps base will show Xwell closed in 1965, then in operation again in 1967, shut 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
203 

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 in 1968, operational in 1969. Having run water 

systems, I consider a sequential pattern: One, electricity 

turned off, pump in well, et cetera, et cetera. 

Wells are either on-line or off-line; active or 

inactive; temporary nonfunctioning for service or longterm nonfunctioning, which can show as permanent nonserviceable; to be abandoned. Is there a sanctioned set 

of rules -- state, federal, American Water Works -- that 

can demystify this melange of terms, which are chaotic, at 

Marine Corps base? 

DR. JOHNSON: Does anyone know? 

(No audible response) 

DR. WALSKI: Well, unfortunately, I think the 

terminology is whatever the person who wrote it down felt 

like writing that day. That's unfortunately the case. 

MR. ENSMINGER: And another thing is, especially over 

in the Hadnot Point system, when you look at the Marine 

Corps' chronology, you would find wells that were taken 

off-line for contamination. And later on in the events, 

you'll see that it was taken off-line again for 

contamination, which tells me it was back on-line. 

DR. POMMERENK: I guess the only state regulation, 

current state regulation, in North Carolina that I recall 

that would relate to that is that you have to, I think, 

file a record of abandoning a well if you take it 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
204 

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 

completely out of service. But otherwise, I wouldn't know 

of any, you know, regulatory issues regarding this 

terminology. 

The other issue that you just addressed, and I'm just 

-- one problem could be -- and we have observed it in Camp 

Lejeune -- that sometimes a new well is drilled and it 

receives the same well number as the old well. That may 

have not happened in Tarawa Terrace, but I'm just throwing 

this out as a thought. 

MR. ENSMINGER: You said at Lejeune there were wells 

-- new wells that were drilled that had the same number as 

the old one? 

DR. POMMERENK: Yes. This has happened. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Where? 

DR. POMMERENK: I can't cite the exact numbers. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Which well numbers? 

MR. FAYE: Peter, I think, you know, your statement 

may be only partially correct. What happens in the -- 

when the contract -- at least as far as the documents that 

we have, when Lejeune turns loose of a contract, either 

for bidding or whatever, they'll -- there's a note on that 

"Well Replaced." Okay? And the old well number goes in 

there because there is no new well yet. Okay? 

And so what happens then is the driller comes along 

and creates that suite of documents, like the drillers' 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
205 

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 

log or Elog or whatever. And they'll put in new HP-645 or 

something like that or new HP-647, which is what you're 

referring to. But that number, in my experience -- and 

I've looked through dozens of these records -- that number 

doesn't actually stay in the system. Okay? That new 

something or other gets a new number. Okay? Ultimately, 

as far as I can tell from the Camp Lejeune records, that 

well gets a new number. It doesn't -- it doesn't stay the 

old number very long. 

DR. POMMERENK: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: Okay? 

DR. JOHNSON: Please proceed. 

MR. ENSMINGER: When were the wells or the eight 

wells at Tarawa Terrace taken 100 percent out of service 

and abandoned? When were they taken out? When were they 

absolutely abandoned, closed, pumps pulled? 

MR. FAYE: May I address that? 

DR. JOHNSON: Would you stay up there, please. 

MR. FAYE: I think that's a really critical, 

critical, critical question. The only -- what I can say 

with relative certainty is that TT-26 and TT-23 were 

removed completely from service in February of 1985. We 

have records in January and February and March of 1987 

that indicate that the Tarawa Terrace -- and also, I think 

if you look at the plant capacities, you would really have 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
206 

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 

some bit of difficulty believing that Holcomb Boulevard 

could supply all of its needs, its original service area 

needs, and Tarawa Terrace needs during 1985 and 1986. 

Okay? 

Maybe it could, but I think there would be some real 

serious operational difficulties. Unfortunately, the 

records that we have, like, for example, for monthly 

discharge -- monthly water-treatment plant operational 

records that give flows for a particular month that are 

exceedingly complete from 1980 to 1984 and then again 

exceedingly complete from 1987 to 1989. For some reason, 

these records for 1985 and '86 have just up and 

disappeared. No one seems to know what happened to them, 

but I believe they certainly existed. 

My own feeling, as I expressed a few minutes ago, is 

that ex-TT-23 and ex-TT-26, the remaining wells at Tarawa 

Terrace that were operational in 1984, probably continued 

-- most of them -- in operation in 1985 and 1986. But we 

really -- and we do know that something was going on at 

the WTP in early 1987. But we really cannot say what was 

going on with the wells, what the well operations were in 

'85 or '86. The records for that period of time have just 

fallen into a black hole somewhere. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Let's continue. I'm going to 

ask ATSDR to provide answers expressly to each of these 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
207 

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. I don't think that's an imposition on the 

agency. To the extent that we can provide some feedback 

today, we will try to do that. But if you're looking for 

complete, satisfying answers, this isn't -- this isn't the 

forum for that. But please continue. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Well, in response to what Mr. Faye 

just said, you have there in your package CLW-1914, which 

is a handwritten memorandum and it's dated in 1991. And 

it stated in this handwritten memorandum that TT-23, 

TT-25, and 26 has pump, will run. However, the well was 

closed. I mean, they weren't 100 percent decapacitated. 

MR. FAYE: That's a note from, I believe, Daniel 

Sharp, from the facilities branch at Camp Lejeune. And 

that was written in a -- in specific -- as a specific 

response -- as a request from either EPA or Weston 

Engineers as they were preparing the Operational Unit 1 

project to study the contamination caused by ABC Cleaners. 

That was a note to Camp Lejeune and a response, asking 

which wells were operational so that they could prepare to 

sample them. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Well, there are means of pulling the 

pumps and putting a -- and still taking samples. 

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But it may be more convenient. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Okay. All right. If the TT well 

fields were not incapacitated in 1985 and an auxiliary 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
208 

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 

line to Tarawa Terrace, back and forth from Tarawa Terrace 

to Holcomb Boulevard, was in place in June of 1985, how do 

we know if Holcomb Boulevard water-treatment plant did not 

receive raw water from the Tarawa Terrace well fields? 

MR. FAYE: We don't, and we actually have just the 

opposite information, a report from Geophex -- was it 

1991, Morris? There is a -- there is a consultant's 

report that we have that we've recently referenced from a 

firm called Geophex out of Raleigh, North Carolina, that 

indicates just what Mr. Ensminger has said, that indeed, 

perhaps in 1989, the Tarawa Terrace wells were used to 

supplement the water supply to the Holcomb Boulevard 

water-treatment plant and perhaps for even an extended 

period of time in that -- within that year or maybe 

several years. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Did you say '89? 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

DR. WALSKI: But wouldn't they have to construct 

another line to go across, then, a raw-water line because 

you can't send the raw water over and treated water back 

in the same pipes. So they had to put in another line, so 

there'd be some record of that. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. One of those -- the report 

continues to say that whatever those operations were, Tom, 

that they ended when the -- when a freeze occurred and the 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
209 

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 

pipe collapsed into Northeast Creek. So whatever was 

happening there, it ended when the pipe collapsed. Okay? 

But I agree with you, and perhaps, there were dual pipes 

there. But we don't have the details. 

MR. MASLIA: Let me just, if I may, qualify that 

again in terms of data discovery and all that. We just 

came across this report, actually, a couple of weeks ago, 

maybe less than that. It's a report that's dated 199 -- 

March of 1991. And on page 23 it makes the specific -- 

apparently the author of the report, who we're trying to 

find out still who the author is, makes the statement 

going over historical issues with different well fields, 

and it talks about the Tarawa Terrace well field. 

And it says two years ago, which would make it '89, 

that the Tarawa Terrace wells supplied Holcomb Boulevard 

with water. That's almost a verbatim quote. I've got the 

report with me. I have called the Geophex office in 

Raleigh. They are no longer doing environmental report, 

and I'm on my third contact, trying to actually pinpoint -

- if I can pinpoint the author of the report, as well as 

we've asked -- we do have a contract number, Camp Lejeune 

contract number, for that particular report. And we have 

asked and I think the folks from Camp Lejeune are 

preparing some documents for us on the entire contract 

that generated that report. So we may find out more 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
210 

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 

details, but that's what we have that's come to our 

attention within the last couple of weeks. 

MR. ENSMINGER: If you'll take a look at the 1 March 

1985 action brief by the Chief of Staff, Colonel Lilley, 

go to the last page, which is 1131. Please note under 

advantages, Item No. 5: Potential future use to return raw 

water from Tarawa Terrace wells. And I'd like you to look 

at Number 2 as well: Availability of water. Can draw from 

Holcomb Boulevard and Hadnot Point system, which leads me 

to believe that that interconnecting valve between the 

Holcomb Boulevard system and the Hadnot Point system was 

being opened, just by that statement in Item No. 2. 

DR. JOHNSON: Any reaction, Bob or Morris? 

MR. FAYE: That could easily be a -- 

MR. MASLIA: I'll only address one of the issues that 

has been brought to our attention previously, and this is 

by a different -- a congressionally mandated panel that 

occurred what? In February, Frank? Yeah, in February. 

And we were repeatedly -- I was repeatedly asked the 

question: Would we and could we model the interconnection? 

Because, again, the understanding or the statements have 

been made previous to our investigation that the 

interconnection was only for emergency purposes, meaning, 

you know, neither short supply and by definition emergency 

-- and we've had this discussion with the present-day 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
211 

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 

operators of Camp Lejeune -- would be, you know, a day -- 

maybe a day or two if either something broke or needed 

extra supply of water. 

That panel specifically wanted to know if we could 

model, you know, several weeks to several months at a time 

of interconnection on that. And my answer to them, just 

to complete the answer, would be that's where we would 

need distribution-system models to model that 

interconnection. 

DR. CLARK: It sounds like Tom's point -- 

COURT REPORTER: Microphone, please. 

DR. JOHNSON: Use the microphone, please. 

DR. CLARK: I'm sorry. Could we turn -- it sounds 

like this pipe was designed to do both things: 

potentially, to return raw water from Tarawa Terrace as 

well as provide treated water from Holcomb Boulevard and 

Hadnot, which is very unusual to do that. 

MR. FAYE: Don't forget now, you're dealing with two 

pipes, okay, one connecting Tarawa Terrace and Holcomb 

Boulevard and the other connecting Holcomb Boulevard and 

Hadnot Point. 

DR. CLARK: Yeah. But this talks out -- oh, I'm 

sorry. Yeah. This talks about one pipe: construct 8-inch 

line from Brewster Boulevard to Tarawa Terrace. And then 

it has advantages, and I assume that refers to the -- 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
212 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

MR. FAYE: That's -- 

DR. CLARK: -- 8-inch line. 

MR. FAYE: That's the one from -- that's the one that 

apparently froze up and fell into Northeast Creek. 

DR. CLARK: Okay. 

MR. FAYE: If they actually built it, which we don't 

know. 

DR. CLARK: But they're talking about a potential use 

of both supplying raw water as well as -- 

MR. FAYE: That refers to what Tom was talking about. 

DR. CLARK: That was Tom's point. 

COURT REPORTER: You need to be at the microphone. 

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sorry. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Shall we move along? 

MR. ENSMINGER: All right. How do historical watersystem operations, assession, monitoring, treating, and 

distribution at Camp Lejeune relate to systems of 

comparable size of population served during the same 

general time frame from 1950 to 1985 in the United States' 

civilian world? In other words, how does -- did the 

operation of Camp Lejeune and presently how does it stack 

up against its civilian counterparts? 

MR. MASLIA: Could I give you a brief answer now, and 

then, since we haven't got into the distribution side of 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
213 

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 

things, give you a more detailed answer tomorrow? Because 

I do want to answer that, so -- but I didn't want to go 

off on a -- 

MR. ENSMINGER: No. 

MR. MASLIA: -- tangent right now, if that's okay 

with the Chair. 

Briefly, based on our experience, it's -- and I'm 

talking about Camp Lejeune, not other military 

installations, but it's night and day. There's almost 

basically an intent to make it demand independent; in 

other words, so they maintain constant pressure, constant 

level in the tanks. 

They don't empty the tanks out, as opposed to, say, 

our work where we saw in Dover Township where there's more 

of a sinusoidal, a filling of a tank during periods of low 

demand, you know, midnight through four a.m. and then 

using that supply of water in the tanks and draining it 

out as people take showers or restaurants come on. 

At Camp Lejeune -- and I'll admit our understanding 

still is not complete as total operation -- even for 

present day, we still have questions. They basically 

almost maintain a constant pressure, maintain a constant 

level in the tanks with the exception of one controlling 

tank per service area. And based on the water level in 

that controlling tank, which, based on our present-day 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
214 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

information, may only fluctuate from a -- from half a foot 

to maybe 6 feet at most. It's in a paper we prepared. 

That's the maximum fluctuation we have -- we have seen 

based on data for present day. 

Then trigger high-lift pumps to turn on, say, at 

Tarawa Terrace to push water through the system. So it is 

a totally different way of operating, and that's one of 

the lacking pieces of information is specific diurnal 

demand. You know, the military personnel, enlisted 

people, you know, may get up at four or three a.m., and 

that's when, maybe, your maximum use may be. And then it 

may trail off six, seven a.m.; whereas in a more urban 

setting, like Dover Township, you may not see a peak in 

demand until eight -- seven or eight o'clock in the 

morning. And then it levels off, and then another peak at 

six p.m. when people come home. And we're still trying to 

understand it, but typically it's a vastly different way 

of operating. 

DR. CLARK: But they do -- they do meet the 

requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. I think 

that's a commitment on the part of the military to do 

that. 

MR. MASLIA: Oh, I wasn't referring to Safe Drinking 

Water Act. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
215 

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: But in terms of treating water, they meet 

the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

MR. MASLIA: Right. 

DR. WALSKI: Yeah. I wouldn't say "night and day" 

either. I mean, there's a wide range in the way systems 

are operated around the country, and they're somewhere in 

the band. You know, they're more conservative though. 

From what I've been reading here, they're more 

conservative. Like, they try to keep raw water in storage 

for fires and emergencies than the average system, which 

allows more fluctuation. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. 

DR. WALSKI: But it's -- so they're a little more on 

that side of the curve. But there's a wide range of 

operations. If you go -- every time I say I've seen it 

all, I go to the next water system. I see something 

totally different. 

DR. CLARK: That includes civilian water systems 

too; right? 

DR. WALSKI: Yeah; civilian and military. 

MR. FAYE: I don't -- I don't mean to belabor the 

situation, but it is really important. Going back to the 

use of the wells at Tarawa Terrace during 1985 and '86, we 

do know that from Naval records that water samples, 

specifically to identify any contaminants, were collected 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
216 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

at the water-treatment plant at Tarawa Terrace weekly from 

March 1986 to March 1987, which certainly lends [sic] me 

to believe that -- that the wells were operating during 

that period. 

And monthly samples were collected at TT-25 during 

that same period, so there was this continuing concern on 

the -- and these -- this sampling program was recommended 

by North Carolina DEM and, I believe, implemented by the 

Navy, by the Marine Corps. 

So it just seems rather incongruous, if the wells 

were not operating and if there was still a not a concern 

about contamination, that none of this sampling program 

would have been implemented. And that's the main reason 

that I believe that the Tarawa Terrace supply Wells 

ex-TT-23 and ex-TT-26 were operating during 1985 and 1986. 

MR. ENSMINGER: I know that flow meters have been 

installed during the conduct of this study. It's been 

published in the newspapers down at Camp Lejeune. What 

results can be made public at this time, and do they -- do 

they match your expectations? 

MR. MASLIA: Again, we'll get into the specifics this 

afternoon and tomorrow, but basically, flow meters were 

recommended -- or requested to be installed by ATSDR 

because we could not just, based on system records 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
217 

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 to us, get a handle on flow to different areas 

and trying to establish a diurnal and demand pattern. 

We located 16 areas -- or 16 points, not areas, 16 

points where we wanted the flow meters installed. This 

discussion took place initially with representatives from 

environmental management division from headquarters, 

Marine Corps and Camp Lejeune staff in July 28th -- on a 

July 28th meeting at Camp Lejeune. And headquarters said 

to proceed with that. 

As of -- in January, towards the end of January, all 

the flow meters were installed. It was ATSDR's technical 

staff, meaning myself and my staff, that a performancebased contract be used to install those; that is, install 

one and see any issues that may arise with it, how useful 

it may be. And then proceed to the next one or not 

proceed, as the case may be. 

We were in a position that to let a contract of that 

size -- for ATSDR to let a contract would have required us 

to, at the minimum, advertise in the Business Commerce

Daily, and you would have seen that taking six months or 

longer -- eight months. So at the time, it was decided 

that the Marine Corps would handle the procurement. 

Apparently, they had a contract in place that would 

not require such a long time to get the flow meters 

installed for procurement. That was already in place, 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
218 

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 

whereas ATSDR would've had to advertise to the world 

basically on a size of that, 16 meters -- a contract 

containing 16 meters. 

So that's why. The Marine Corps offered, and we 

accepted their offer for them to do the procurement and 

installation. So we were in the recommendation stage. We 

did recommend that it be performance based. All 16 were 

purchased, and all 16 were installed. 

As of this past March, while they are operating, they 

are not calibrated. And we're still working on that. We 

have submitted a report, a detailed report, on every flow 

meter on what needs to be done to calibrate the flow 

meters so we can get reliable information. So the short 

answer to your question is: We have not obtained any 

reliable or useful information to date from the flow 

meters. 

MR. ENSMINGER: What's the holdup with the 

calibration? 

MR. MASLIA: Some technical issues. Number one, in 

the calibration process, certain valves have to be shut 

off to zero the meters out. And on the other side is 

ATSDR not having -- or I not having staff to actually -- 

as I alluded to, we don't have a field office there. So 

when questions need to be answered, we are not on site to 

specifically direct the work to do that. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
219 

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 are not on site there full-time, and so it's a 

combination of installing field equipment and so us making 

trips back and forth. We have been told on a number of 

occasions that the flow meters have been calibrated. We 

have made trips up there, and when we try to QAQC them, 

they're not calibrated. 

DR. JOHNSON: Let me digress and ask if anyone else 

from the public plans to make a statement. 

(No audible response) 

DR. JOHNSON: Seeing no hands raised, please, 

continue. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Historical documentation: pumping 

records as to quantity, quality, distribution-system 

problems, well-field problems, infrastructure data on well 

construction, depth output, locations are by necessity to 

be furnished by the environmental management division of 

Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune or by their utility 

section. 

Has ATSDR received all the materials it has specified 

that it would require? And if not, what is the 

explanation? And has ATSDR brought this matter of lack of 

cooperation to a -- to the attention of anybody else, such 

as headquarters of the Marine Corps? 

MR. FAYE: Well, first of all, let's not make the 

presumption that there's been a lack of cooperation 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
220 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

because I wouldn't go that far. In a number of areas that 

are very critical, the Marine Corps has been extremely 

forthcoming and provided very useful information. 

As far as the well data are concerned, between the 

information that we have obtained from the Marine Corps 

and from the U.S. Geological Survey, who, as I mentioned 

earlier, did two very comprehensive studies there in the 

late 1980s, we've got a -- we have -- ATSDR has a very -- 

what I would say a very substantially complete record of 

all of the wells that have been drilled at either Holcomb 

Boulevard, Hadnot Point, or Tarawa Terrace, or Camp 

Johnson, starting back in the early 1940s up to about 1987 

or '88. 

We do have additional -- well, several additional 

well records that have been completed at Camp Lejeune; 

very extensive records with contract numbers and whatever. 

Now, we have asked Camp Lejeune if -- we've asked them for 

some location data and other information about these wells 

that they've not provided yet. But in that regard, you 

know, that's only a half a dozen records. 

Another thing I'd like to point out is the records 

provided to us relative to RI/FS studies and undergroundstorage tank removal studies at Tarawa Terrace have been 

very, very useful. And as far as I can tell, the records 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
221 

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 

provided by Camp Lejeune, which are in the dozens -- 

dozens of reports, are complete. 

We would really like to have a similar contribution 

of those RI/FS and underground-storage tank removal 

reports, et cetera, from the -- for the Holcomb Boulevard 

area and the Hadnot Point area, and we've asked for that. 

But that's a large volume of information, and we haven't 

received it yet. But we hope we will in the future. In 

fact, very soon, I hope. 

But as far as the well data are concerned, 

specifically, I think we have a very substantially 

complete record of what's available, of the data 

available. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Listening earlier -- 

MR. FAYE: No. That doesn't -- that includes the 

well data in terms of, like, construction. That does not 

include operational information. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Yeah. That's what I was just going 

to ask because earlier you stated that you didn't have 

near the information for, say, Hadnot Point that you did 

for Tarawa Terrace. I mean, that's the same organization. 

The same outfit that's running Tarawa Terrace is running 

Hadnot Point. So if they had good records for Tarawa 

Terrace, they should have good records for Hadnot Point 

water system as well. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
222 

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. ASHTON: I'd like to -- 

COURT REPORTER: I need you to get to a microphone. 

Please identify yourself. 

MR. ASHTON: I'm Brynn Ashton, and I've been really 

spearheading the effort from our environmental management 

division to provide the information. And in all cases, I 

think we've given -- we tried to provide you whatever we 

have. Recordkeeping is not consistent across Camp 

Lejeune. And there's been times where we might have some 

information in certain plants. We might not have as good 

information or organized as well in other plants. 

So what we've tried to do is provide whatever we 

have, and, you know, the Commandant has made it very clear 

to us that we shall provide you with whatever information 

we have in as timely a manner as possible. If, at any 

time, it appears that we are not providing that 

information, it's just because it's not available or it's 

not organized. Or in some cases, we've scoured our 

records. We've found records that we did not realize were 

in existence. So in summary, we have the charge, we have 

the mission, to provide as much information as you ask in 

as timely a manner as possible. 

MR. ENSMINGER: I have another question for you while 

you're up here. If that's the case, the plant account 

records -- 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
223 

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. ASHTON: Yes. 

MR. ENSMINGER: -- I know that EMD has a listing of 

all and has pulled all the well data and all of the watersystem data off the plant account records, all the 

historical data. I know it exists because I used to call 

Rick Raines and get certain information from him when he 

was here. Why hasn't that been provided to them? 

MR. ASHTON: Now, I think -- I think they will verify 

that we've provided them what we have. The plant account 

data is very minimal. It -- what it has is it has square 

footage of the buildings. It has years of construction. 

It has, you know, numbers of the facilities. It has 

certain category codes, and that -- you now, that is 

available through our plant account organization. 

MR. ENSMINGER: I know. 

MR. ASHTON: Some of it was not computerized. Some 

of it's in hard copy. 

MR. ENSMINGER: I know. 

MR. ASHTON: I think we've provided you what you've 

asked for on the plant account. And we've -- we actually 

have a point of contact that runs that section, and what 

we've done is we've provided the point of contact so you 

can get whatever information they have. 

Again, you know, I'm not always proud of their -- the 

level of recordkeeping that we've done in the past. You 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
224 

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, we've already alluded to some gaps in the knowledge. 

Whatever we have, whatever we can locate, we provide. 

And, you know, that's our charter. That's our charge from 

the highest level, from the Commandant, is that we be 

fully cooperative, that we provide whatever information we 

have. And we're routinely -- we're going through records 

as we speak. We've got volumes of records. 

Morris will verify to the facts that we have this 

vault with, probably, 70,000 different drawings in it. 

And the vault dates back from the forties because, 

for example, Tarawa Terrace was built by a private 

contractor -- 

MR. ENSMINGER: Mm-hmm. 

MR. ASHTON: -- the records are very spotty because 

we -- they weren't government records when the development 

was initially constructed. The air station, for example 

-- this isn't part of this study. But, you know, we had 

virtually no construction drawings from the early fifties 

from the air station. It was just discarded by somebody. 

That's the unfortunate environment that we're working 

with. But the one thing that, I guess, I'm here to say is 

that whatever support we can provide, whatever information 

we can provide, we try to provide that as soon as -- in as 

timely a manner as possible. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Thank you. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
225 

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: Well, thank you for your comments. Do 

you have one more question, Mr. Ensminger? 

MR. ENSMINGER: No. I have some -- I have some 

statements. The reason I am a bit skeptical of the Marine 

Corps or their personnel, as far as their involvement in 

this thing -- and you have to admit, Camp Lejeune, that -- 

or the people that represent Camp Lejeune now, today, what 

was done in the past at Lejeune regarding this situation, 

there's -- there have been some real atrocities committed 

down there by some people that provided ATSDR with 

incorrect water-system data, purposely. And when they 

were told to correct it, they did not do it. 

And there was a repeated request by headquarters 

Marine Corps for you to correct it -- or not you, but your 

predecessors: Mr. Neil Paul to be exact. And he did 

nothing. And ATSDR went from 1993 to 2003 under the 

assumption that the Holcomb Boulevard water system 

provided water for all those housing areas on the main 

part of the base for the entire study period, which was 

'68 through '85 when, in fact, Hadnot Point provided that 

water up until 1973, August of '73. And that's by 

statement from Carl Baker from the plant account records. 

So can you understand my skepticism? And you've got 

to understand that I lost a child. And I wish -- there's 

no way that I can relay to you what I feel and what my 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
226 

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 

daughter went through. And damn it, I want to know, and 

there's a lot of other people out there that want to know 

what happened to their kids. I want to know why my 

daughter went through the hell she went through. And if 

there's anybody that's withholding information or not 

providing correct information, I swear to God, if I find 

out about it, I'll do everything that is possible to make 

sure that they are dealt with. 

DR. JOHNSON: We appreciate your comments, and we 

offer, certainly, our condolences in the loss of a child. 

We cannot fully appreciate your feelings, but we certainly 

commiserate with you and offer you our sympathies. 

I have asked your comments and those from Mr. 

Townsend might be made part of this public meeting's 

record. I have suggested, Dr. Cibulas, that the agency 

provide a response to what are serious and important 

questions. And I hope that you feel that you've had a 

fair hearing and response to your questions today. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Well, we'll see by the end of 

tomorrow. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. 

MR. ENSMINGER: Thank you. 

DR. JOHNSON: Thank you again. I'd like to return to 

these eight questions and ask first of all, Mr. Maslia, 

we've got four through eight. Is there any priority here 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
227 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

in these -- priority of importance in these questions that 

remain? 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. Let me reorient myself here; not 

really. They're of equal importance. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Let's turn to Question 4: 

Should ATSDR consider using a parameter estimation 

approach to assess parameter sensitivity? And I suggest 

that you -- that we ignore the second part of that 

question: when such a process should begin. Anyone want 

to take a bite on parameter estimation? Eric. 

DR. LABOLLE: Are we referring to the distribution 

system model or the groundwater model at this point? 

DR. JOHNSON: Groundwater. 

MR. MASLIA: Groundwater. 

DR. LABOLLE: Well, my primary concern would be with 

dealing with the uncertainty and variability in the 

subsurface with regards to parameter estimation. At this 

point in time, there is some preliminary characterization 

done and a model constructed. And the construction of the 

model -- and I think I voiced some of this in my 

premeeting comments -- kind of constrains one's 

characterization of the subsurface, which is considerably 

more variable. And the uncertainty in that is great. We 

have samples at locations, wells, borings, and such, but 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
228 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

no information between other than what we know of the 

geology. 

And so the parameter estimation that you do is going 

to allow you to vary these parameters within the cells 

based upon the constraints of the model. And my concern 

-- not -- that's not a bad idea, but my concern would be 

that the model response is still constrained by the 

characterization that's in place and that there 

potentially be, in addition to, depending on the role of 

the groundwater model, of course, and the level of detail 

that it requires in order to improve the answer. 

But my concern would be that not only there would be 

some parameter estimation, but also a way of addressing 

the uncertainty and variability in the subsurface beyond 

the constraints imposed by the current characterization, 

if necessary. 

And that's going to be driven by the epi model, 

whether or not one needs to essentially get at multiple 

exposure scenarios in order to tease out the dose 

response. So if the epi model is very weak in a sense in 

terms of its correlation, the actual dose response, then 

one might need multiple exposure scenarios in order to 

find that. There's my primary concern. But, certainly, 

parameter estimation, I think, is a necessary step if, 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
229 

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 

indeed, one needs to refine the arrival curves to these 

wells. 

MR. FAYE: I have no argument or really even any 

comment to say except that I agree with you, and we've 

always planned to use parameter estimation to the greatest 

extent that we possibly could. We've only done it 

recently -- or not recently. But with respect to the 

prepumping model, I spent quite a bit of time using PEST 

and UCODE to estimate -- to estimate that recharge rate. 

And frankly, I didn't get any better answers than just 

using the estimate that's published in several -- several 

papers. So -- but it's something that we definitely plan 

to deal with in the future. 

DR. LABOLLE: There is one additional concern 

actually with regards to parameter estimation that I've 

been meaning to touch on at some point here which is: What 

data do you calibrate to? And I've noted from some of the 

slides you had up there that parameter estimation or the 

focus on the calibration has been on the hydraulic model, 

and that's used in the transport model. Now, to the 

extent that the parameter estimation could be used in 

combination for both the hydraulic and the transport 

model, I think that's quite important. 

And the more recent data that's available on 

concentrations, unfortunately, probably doesn't overlap 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
230 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

with the time frame of interest and the time frame in 

which the model's been developed. 

But if there was any plan to extend the model period 

forward over the later periods over which you have better 

information, there may be something to be gained from 

calibrating the transport model to probably the better 

data on concentrations in later time periods. 

MR. FAYE: Oh, yeah. We would definitely be remiss 

if we ended our calibration in 1985. We would extend the 

calibration for the fate and transport to 1991, which is 

the last period that we actually have contaminant 

information at several supply wells. That's always been 

on the books to do that. I had another comment. It 

slipped my mind. 

DR. LABOLLE: Is there -- 

MR. FAYE: The -- pardon? 

DR. LABOLLE: Is there additional data after '91 

also? 

MR. FAYE: No; no; no. As Mr. Ensminger said and as 

I reiterated later in some of my comments, apparently, 

right after the wells were sampled during Operable Unit 1, 

the Operable Unit 1 study at ABC Cleaners, the Marine 

Corps destroyed the wells, literally. It grouted them up, 

took the hardware out, pumps, and grouted them up. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
231 

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 there's no monitoring at the 

monitoring wells after that time period? Or is there? 

MR. FAYE: No; no. I think actually the monitoring 

wells are gone as well. 

DR. LABOLLE: Okay. 

DR FAYE: Except for the immediate vicinity of ABC 

Cleaners because they have to -- they have to have some 

means of determining the efficiency of their remediation 

activity there at ABC Cleaners. So that's pretty much it. 

The -- as you saw, we would -- in order to -- in order to 

do some parameter estimation during this transient period, 

we would probably do some additional refinement on those 

so-called static water levels. 

You saw the shotgun scatter diagram there, so that 

makes -- that makes the notion of parameter estimation a 

little -- a little difficult when you're trying to match 

that number of water levels plus that type of variability 

in the water levels. But it's definitely something that 

we -- that we'll deal with. And that was a good comment. 

Thank you. 

DR. JOHNSON: Any further comments on that question? 

DR. CLARK: One comment. 

DR. JOHNSON: Yes; please, Bob. 

DR. CLARK: It seems to me that, in addition to 

having data for parameter estimation, it would be nice to 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
232 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

be able to create an independent data set for validation 

of predictions. And I think that would be an essential 

part of the protocol for doing the regression estimations. 

MR. FAYE: The only -- the only way we could do that 

would basically to be randomly select data from the -- 

from the -- from the total population of the database that 

we've got. We could do that. 

DR. SINGH: I would like -- since it says no linear 

regression approach, you know, I think you should consider 

using more efficient and powerful parameter estimation 

techniques, such as GLUE, and especially in conjunction 

with the generic programming, your load times. I think 

that would be a better approach than only the regression 

approach, especially when you have such limited data. 

MR. FAYE: Thank you. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: One other comment is that, at least 

the way the language is usually used, parameter estimation 

assumes a model. And it seems to me that the model 

estimation, at least the submodel for source terms -- and 

getting ahead of our current topic -- tanks is perhaps 

more significant than some of the parameters that one 

might first think of going off and estimating. And my 

initial reaction is that the model estimation process, 

particularly at the source term, is more significant. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
233 

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: Okay. Let's move on to the next 

question. Should ATSDR consider using probabilistic 

analyses to assess the variability and uncertainty of 

model parameters and variability and uncertainty of 

contaminant concentrations at public supply wells? Are 

there public domain codes available that the panel would 

recommend using? Anyone want to bite on that one? 

Please. 

DR. CLARK: I'll take a shot at it. Yeah. I think 

the idea of using probabilistic analysis and so forth is a 

good idea, but I'm wondering: You're having enough trouble 

dealing with just the -- with the deterministic model 

you're working with is -- wouldn't that add a level of 

complexity that goes way beyond where you could possibly 

go at this point? 

MR. FAYE: That was your question, Morris. You 

answer it. 

MR. MASLIA: Yes. Yes. That was a question posed in 

the early stages of the formulation of this panel, and we 

were trying to consider any and all topics that might be 

brought to the table. And obviously, the panel has sort 

of narrowed our focus into certain areas. And it may be 

just more than we can bite off at the present time. And I 

think, as David already appropriately pointed out, we may 

be talking more into model estimation as opposed to 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
234 

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 

parameter estimation, given the limited data that is 

available, and really find out how our model -- the effect 

on the performance of our model. 

If I could just go back for a second when -- Eric, 

you were speaking about calibration for -- from the waterquality standpoint or from the transport standpoint in 

addition to the hydraulic. And I think we've taken -- and 

this gets into the distribution side. 

But we've taken that approach, and that's one of the 

ideas that has driven us on the water-distribution side -- 

once we saw some of the hydraulic parameters of the 

distribution side -- to do tracer tests, realizing that if 

we were going to ever calibrate a distribution model that 

we would have to calibrate it to water-quality parameters, 

rather than just on the hydraulic side. 

We would probably end up, at best, with a nonunique 

hydraulic solution; at the very best if we did not. So we 

are aware of that. Your point is well taken. We're 

probably at that step on the distribution side, and that's 

a step we need to look at from the groundwater side. 

DR. LABOLLE: I think it might be important here to 

define what we mean by calibration to some extent because 

the previous question was with regards to parameter 

estimation for calibration. But in my mind, when I speak 

of calibration, I think we're talking the big picture, 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
235 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

including the source term, as David brought up, then 

including the recharge and everything else -- 

MR. MASLIA: Oh, absolutely. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- that comes into play here, so... 

And with regards to the use of specific models, I'm 

reluctant to advise ATSDR to necessarily embark on, for 

example, a geostatistical approach to -- although that's 

kind of what I was implying by my previous answer. I'm 

reluctant to specifically recommend that at this point in 

time until I understand more the role of the tanks, the 

mixing, and the distribution-system model, the time frame 

at which we know contamination was present at some of the 

wells relative to, you know, some of the uncertainty, and 

how much uncertainty can be tolerated in the epi model. I 

think that's going to become apparent over the next day 

and a half. 

DR. WALSKI: Instead of using the word 

"probabilistic" analysis, I would just think in -- more in 

terms of sensitivity analysis. Find out what is the model 

sensitive to and focus on that parameter and not try to 

figure out every cell's hydraulic conductivity or anything 

like that. And you know, focus on the one or two things 

that really make a difference. And it's probably going to 

be source. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
236 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

DR. DOUGHERTY: And the answer is -- focusing on the 

last part of the question, rather than the first part, the 

answer is yes. You should you use some probabilistic 

analysis for the impact at the -- it's not clear yet 

whether it's the individual wells or the blended well 

concentrations but on that metric. Yes. 

DR. LABOLLE: Yeah. The answer -- if I can elaborate 

on what I said -- I was reluctant to provide 

recommendations for using geostatistics but certainly some 

sort of probabilistic analysis is going to have to be 

employed to consider the uncertainty in these arrival 

curves to the wells regardless of how well you know the 

source because although the source terms -- and the 

uncertainty in that is going to, you know, directly affect 

the arrival to these wells and the concentrations at which 

the PCE arrives. 

The hydrogeologic uncertainty is an additional 

component that will make that highly uncertain as well and 

possibly on the order of a magnitude, an order of 

magnitude or more, maybe even two orders of magnitude, 

uncertainty in concentrations that arrive to these wells, 

even from the hydrogeologic uncertainty. And so 

constraining that, to the extent that you can, from the 

models, I think, is important. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
237 

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: Okay; moving on. How should ATSDR 

address the issue of lack of observed water-level data 

prior to 1974, reminding us that the epi study is from 

1968 -- or covers 1968 through 1985? 

MR. MASLIA: That should have been from '78. If 

you've been following the discussion all day, we don't 

have the data prior to '78. 

MR. FAYE: Very few. 

DR. JOHNSON: So that becomes a moot question. 

MR. FAYE: No. But I think we've already addressed 

it in terms of the uncertainty discussions and the 

parameter estimation discussions. I think we just sort -- 

it would be a lot of repetition in response to that 

question, but that's no reason not to respond. 

DR. JOHNSON: If you're happy, I'm happy. Any 

comments on -- 

MR. FAYE: Okay. I'm happy. 

MR. MASLIA: The only comment I will -- I will make 

and I've had this initial discussion with Frank Bove, and 

he's actually prepared some, I guess, iterations or some 

initial analyses. And the discussion went along the line 

is: How much uncertainty or variability could the epi 

study tolerate in terms of if our arrival times are plus 

or minus a couple of months versus plus or minus six 

months versus plus or minus a couple of years? 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
238 

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 an issue. As I said, he's just prepared 

some preliminary analysis on, but that's something we need 

to sit down and discuss with them. That's the exact 

issue. So the fact that we don't have very many data 

prior to '78 brings that again to the forefront since 

they're starting the study in '68. 

DR. KONIKOW: Do you have pumpage data from prior to 

1978? 

MR. FAYE: Yeah, we do, Lenny. We have periodic 

information for, perhaps -- well, not perhaps, for a 

particular year. Maybe, I think we have data for '71. We 

have data for '62. And, of course, the USGS, their data 

go to '75. I think we also have some '68 data, but these 

are just, you know, snapshots. 

And -- but the point is -- and I think I made it 

earlier -- that because of the -- because of the utility 

of Tarawa Terrace, the housing was occupied 90 percent to 

100 percent all the time. And that's borne out in the 

USGS data as well. I mean, we're looking at point -- 

averages of .95 MGD plus or minus 10 percent for, you 

know, well over a decade. And I think that was probably 

the case, you know, from the get go. 

DR. KONIKOW: So really what you're saying is that if 

you can calibrate the model adequately for the times when 

you have water-level data -- 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
239 

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: Right. That's -- 

DR. KONIKOW: -- you could then run the model -- 

MR. FAYE: That's the whole plan. 

DR. KONIKOW: -- impose the stresses -- 

MR. FAYE: Yep. 

DR. KONIKOW: -- for the earlier time. 

MR. FAYE: Right. That's the plan. 

DR. KONIKOW: -- and that still leaves you with the 

issue of concentrations though. 

MR. FAYE: Exactly; exactly. And the thing that we 

hope to be able to do is to have some good estimate of 

mass loading through time. It should be fairly constant 

except for the periods there that, like Mr. Ensminger was 

discussing during Vietnam, when there was -- when it was 

probably somewhat to greatly accelerated, the activities 

at ABC Cleaners. 

But for all intents and purposes, it is a single 

source, and hopefully, maybe, perhaps from these tax 

records or other information that we'll be able to 

discover in the reasonably near future. We should be able 

to -- or we'll hopefully be able to get or to obtain some 

notion of the use at the source. That still doesn't 

really address what the loss -- what the percentage of 

loss was from their actual total use. So we'll just have 

to start out, make some estimates, do alternative 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
240 

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 

simulations, and hopefully arrive at a defensible, 

reasonable answer. 

DR. KONIKOW: Well, I think what you're going to come 

up with is that there was some contamination there from 

the beginning of this -- 

MR. FAYE: Right. 

DR. KONIKOW: -- epidemiological study. 

MR. FAYE: Oh, yes. 

DR. KONIKOW: And -- 

MR. FAYE: No question. 

DR. KONIKOW: -- you may not be able to refine it 

down any more than we just said. 

MR. FAYE: Maybe we can't; yeah. I don't know 

whether that precludes the attempt or not. That's 

hopefully what -- where we'll get -- gain some insights 

from you-all. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. How should ATSDR address the 

issue of lack of monthly groundwater production data when 

monthly data are required for the epi study? 

MR. FAYE: Well, let me say a few words about that 

too. We now have good monthly data back to 1980. All 

right? And we have -- prior to 19 -- 1980, we probably 

have, maybe, three, four, five snapshots in time of the 

well capacities because the well capacities have changed 

through time. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
241 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

So what we can ultimately do -- what we possibly 

should be able to do, using the monthly data that we do 

have now from 1980 through 1984 and the well capacity data 

that we have for that time, possibly rate the -- that use 

as a factor of -- as a factor of capacity. And then, as 

the capacity changes back through the historical record, 

adjust that on a monthly basis. And knowing what the 

annual record is -- we know what monthly variability is 

now from the -- from the detailed records that we have for 

those four, five, six years -- develop a model of 

activity. Okay? 

MR. MASLIA: One of the pieces of information that 

we've just recently obtained, which has been referred to, 

is this plant accountability record. I actually have a 

copy with it, and it goes from 1990 backwards 'til they 

started keeping the records. 

What's in it is it lists -- for example, it lists the 

pump house or well house and treatment facility and 

anything by all the different water-plant areas at Camp 

Lejeune. It references a card number, which is my 

understanding how records are referenced to or kept in the 

vault at Camp Lejeune. That should -- at least, we'll 

make the attempt at going back there and pulling whatever 

information is in there. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
242 

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 

Up until we got that information telling us or 

suggesting that we go into this storehouse of information 

and start looking someplace, it was like looking for a 

needle in a haystack. You don't know where to turn to 

look. At least now we have some directed means. Whether 

that yields useful information or not, I can't answer, but 

that may -- in fact, just this last week -- I think it was 

last Thursday or Friday -- I received from the EMD folks 

at Camp Lejeune the -- was it from the '80 to '80 -- 

MR. ASHTON: '84. 

MR. MASLIA: '80 through '84 monthly production 

records by every water system. So this information is 

still coming in. And as we have -- as we refine -- excuse 

me -- our approach based on recommendations from this 

panel -- also I think that goes hand-in-hand with 

hopefully obtaining additional data we may find. In other 

words, we have not given up on trying to locate the 

earlier information. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Anything else? Lastly, Question 

8: Is it sufficient to use an annual average recharge or 

infiltration rate and assess climatic conditions to derive 

monthly recharge rates? Are other methods or techniques 

available to derive monthly recharge data? Does anyone 

know? 

DR. CLARK: [off microphone] 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
243 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

COURT REPORTER: Sir, I need you to use the 

microphone. 

DR. CLARK: I'm sorry. Could one use some of the 

meteorological data we discussed to get estimates? 

MR. FAYE: Yes. That's our plan now. We have 

monthly rainfall, pan evaporation records for the entire 

period of interest, starting in the early fifties and 

going up into the nineties. And once we can decide on 

this baseline annual recharge, whatever it is -- 14 

inches, 13 inches, 15, something like that. 

Whatever that is, then we can use that -- and we 

compare that then to the -- we have -- what we'll have 

from that -- from that long period of meteorological 

record, we'll have an -- a long-term average annual 

rainfall as well. So we can equate that 14 inches of 

recharge to the long-term average rainfall. And then, 

using the monthly data, we can prorate that out. 

We can say, well, for 1963 the recharge -- the annual 

recharge was only 10 inches and prorate that out on a 

monthly basis, using the meteorological record. 1975, it 

was 16 inches and prorate that out, using the 

meteorological record. And hopefully, we can develop a 

recharge schedule for the various stress periods that way. 

It's not -- it's not, you know, it's not rocket science, 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
244 

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 it is somewhat practical and common-sensely and 

straightforward. So hopefully, it might work. 

DR. CLARK: Can you get an estimate for changes in 

soil permeability over that period of time? 

MR. FAYE: There may be some agricultural records at 

an experiment station somewhere down there in the coastal 

plain where they -- where they collect those -- that 

information, I guess, almost daily, particularly during 

dry periods. We haven't looked for it. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: The only comment I have with respect 

to using the preset and then generating the variations of 

the record is that that may be excessively rough compared 

to the infiltration function at -- as it accretes to the 

groundwater system. So it may be useful to -- basically 

the unsaturated zone acts as a buffer and -- 

MR. FAYE: Sure. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- and a smoother, so it may be 

useful to use a very simplistic, one-dimensional model, 

representative of characteristic depths to groundwater -- 

MR. FAYE: Oh. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- to reduce the roughness. 

MR. FAYE: Mm-hmm. And then what would you -- you 

would -- you would bleed off the rainfall with some 

estimate of ET or loss, using, what, pan evaporation data 

or something like that? 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
245 

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: That's one approach. The other 

approach may be to do a simple, straightforward extension 

of what you're doing now. 

MR. FAYE: Oh, okay. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: You have an average -- 

MR. FAYE: Okay. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- from the average prorate. That's 

the loading to the top of your reactor. 

MR. FAYE: Right; right. And the advantage of what 

you're saying just because we think we got 14 inches of 

recharge or maybe the 1 inch of recharge during a 

particular month -- because of the thickness of the 

unsaturated zone, the water table may not see that for 

another month or another two months. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Right. The unsaturated zone acts 

as -- 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: -- as bank storage. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. And the advantage of what you're 

saying would allow us to look at that antecedent condition 

pretty nicely. 

DR. DOUGHERTY: Perhaps. The other advantage is that 

it may smooth out some rewetting problems that you may 

have because it's smoother rather than rougher. 

MR. FAYE: Oh, yeah; right; okay. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
246 

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: You might try -- with regards to that, 

you might try the -- I think it's been released. But one 

of the researchers in our office was developing -- 

COURT REPORTER: Can you get nearer your microphone, 

please. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- the sat/unsat package for Modflow. 

And it's not a full unsaturated code, so it doesn't have 

its complexities that you'd -- that you would normally 

associate with that -- 

MR. FAYE: Well, that's good. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- an enigmatic wave -- 

MR. FAYE: Okay. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- approach. 

MR. FAYE: Yeah. 

DR. LABOLLE: And it will provide the buffering that 

you're looking for. It's essentially, you know, a 

modified recharge. 

MR. FAYE: Oh, that would be nice. What's this 

person's name? 

DR. LABOLLE: That's the -- Dave Prudic is working on 

that with Richard -- 

MR. FAYE: Oh, yeah, I know Dave. 

MR. MASLIA: Oh, we know Dave. 

MR. FAYE: He's a personal friend of mine. 

COURT REPORTER: One at a time, please. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
247 

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: Rich and Dave are the two -- 

MR. FAYE: Okay. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- that have been developing that, 

so -- 

MR. FAYE: Oh, okay. 

DR. LABOLLE: I think it's either been released or 

it's in testing, one or the other. 

MR. FAYE: All right. Well, it's time to harass 

Dave. 

MR. MASLIA: Lenny, would you know anything -- would 

you know anything about if that's been officially released 

by the survey? 

DR. KONIKOW: To the best of my knowledge, it's not 

officially released yet. 

MR. MASLIA: Okay. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. We have plodded through these 

eight questions, and I offer the panel the opportunity to 

further elaborate on any point, something you, maybe, have 

forgotten and wished you had brought up as an earlier 

discussion. But this is going to be pretty much the 

conclusion of comments on the groundwater modeling. 

Anything that any panelist wishes? Please, James. 

DR. UBER: Well, I just -- I'm no groundwater modeler 

at all, but I've heard a few people talk about source 

terms. And I just offer this as an idea for it to be shot 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
248 

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, I guess. I wonder whether some more time should be 

spent on working your way back to the source, to your, you 

know, your hardest number, which I guess is your estimate 

of how much PERC they used on a monthly basis. 

So in other words, I mean, I don't know how a drycleaner operates and how much they lose -- 

MR. FAYE: Well, we don't either. 

DR. UBER: -- and how much is diluted with other -- 

with water as it goes into the septic system and whatnot. 

But should more effort be spent on modeling that process? 

MR. MASLIA: I think -- if I can do that one. 

MR. FAYE: Have at it. 

MR. MASLIA: That's really -- and this may be an 

inappropriate term, but I'm going to use it anyway. I can 

get shot down. That's really a facilities management-type 

question that you're asking. How was the facility 

managed, and can we glean any information as far as how we 

classify or quantify the source that goes into our 

groundwater model? 

In other words -- and that, I think, goes back to 

this data-discovery issue. Can we pull tax records? Can 

we perhaps find -- and I don't know the issue. But if you 

look at deliveries, deliveries to the dry-cleaner on how 

much they use, we should see an upswing during the Vietnam 

period, obviously. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
249 

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 then perhaps through the -- there's a dry-cleaner 

-- National Dry-Cleaners Association. Because my drycleaners -- I asked him once about PERC, and he gave some 

handout from them. So I know they have a national 

organization. They may, in fact, have some information we 

have not looked on on typical uses, historic uses. That's 

an area, I agree, I think we need to really look at. 

DR. WALSKI: So related to this, we're doing all this 

sophisticated stuff, going back through tax records and 

all that, why don't we just talk to the guy that ran ABC 

Cleaners? I mean, get somebody who was the manager and 

interview that person and find out what they did, I 

 mean -- 

UNIDIENTIFIED SPEAKER: Because he's dead. 

COURT REPORTER: Either at the mike, or (laughter)... 

DR. WALSKI: If he's dead, then I think one of his 

employees or somebody should know what went on there. 

There should be somebody who worked there that's still 

alive. 

MR. FAYE: I think we're also dealing with, Tom, 

something you pointed out a few minutes ago with regard to 

the operation of these water-treatment plants. And that 

is, you know, there's a broad spectrum of the way folks do 

things, and I think -- and we had two -- we have two 

examples right there. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
250 

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 have the ABC Cleaners, who were, obviously, 

exceptionally sloppy, to put it kindly, and we have this 

Globarama place, who was very -- they were very efficient 

in their operations and how they -- how they tracked their 

and collected their PCE waste. So, yeah, we need to try 

to find out as much as we can about that. And all of that 

affects the source term, and there's just no denying -- 

and we wouldn't that -- the source term is a critical, 

critical, critical feature of the fate and transport 

model. 

DR. LABOLLE: You might want to look at one of these 

other simple models for looking at a dissolving source 

like that, you know, a DNAPL, like we're dealing with 

 here. 

MR. FAYE: Mm-hmm. 

DR. LABOLLE: And I've actually run some of these in 

the past. I forgotten the names if it. Something called 

3-D? Does that sound -- 

MR. FAYE: There's something called Fate 5. There's 

a number of them out there. 

DR. LABOLLE: And, you know, that may be helpful, I 

think, in -- 

MR. FAYE: Mm-hmm. 

DR. LABOLLE: -- because, you know, what's been 

mentioned is one aspect, which is facilities operation. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
251 

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 then below that, you know, you've got the unsaturated 

zone. You've got the source entering in there. And 

you're looking at the saturated zone, not the unsaturated 

zone. 

MR. FAYE: Right. 

DR. LABOLLE: So it might be useful in helping to 

refine what the source may have looked like once you get a 

handle on how much is entering the subsurface. 

DR. JOHNSON: Mr. Ensminger. 

MR. ENSMINGER: I just wanted to add one thing. I 

know that depositions were taken prior to Mr. Meltz's 

death by the EPA and some different law firms. And those 

are available. 

MR. FAYE: Do you know where? 

MR. ENSMINGER: Yes. I'll tell you. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you for your comment. 

Anything else on groundwater? 

(No audible response) 

DR. JOHNSON: Looking at tomorrow, let me bring to 

your attention that we begin at eight a.m., not 8:30. So 

there's a time change, so be here a few minutes before 

eight. We will begin, Morris, with your presentation on 

the water-distribution system, an update on that work, and 

then go from there into the set of questions that the 

agency has brought forward. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
252 

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 

As a matter of, perhaps, a take-home assignment to 

the panelists, we're going to be talking about these four 

charges. And clearly, we've already discussed some of 

this. And tomorrow at the working lunch, we need to begin 

formulating some specific responses to these four charges. 

And I would ask that you simply look at these four charges 

tonight, maybe put a few notes in the margin. And that 

will help us perhaps go through these in a more efficient 

fashion tomorrow. 

With regard to the hotel, is there transportation 

provided this evening as well as tomorrow? It's a very 

accommodating hotel. 

MR. MASLIA: There probably is. If there's anyone 

out in the lobby -- you mean going back to or going out to 

a restaurant? 

MR. MASLIA: Going -- 

DR. JOHNSON: All of the above; yes. 

MR. MASLIA: The hotel is very accommodating, and I 

will see if anyone's out in the hallway to answer that 

question. 

But if I -- if I might just -- about a 60-second 

point here is, again, on behalf of the technical staff -- 

and I assume I won't get beat over the head by agency 

management for speaking for the agency, although Bill's 

backing his chair up right now, so maybe I shouldn't. We 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
253 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

do very much appreciate your input. It's very useable. 

It's from people who've seen a variety of cases, both 

public and private contamination cases. 

One of the things we take into consideration -- for 

example, if we modify or go down a different path, taking 

the information that you have provided us, we still need 

to provide our other audience, the public and others, a 

technical reason why we have chosen to change direction. 

In other words, so that may still require us to say, 

"Well, we did a cursory review of Hadnot Point, and, based 

on recommendations from the panel and what we're seeing 

right now, we're not going there any longer." 

And that's just, for those who are not familiar with 

the way ATSDR operates, we do have this other audience to, 

at least, you know, address or at least acknowledge their 

questions. So that's the other side to that. You're 

obviously not charged with, but our mission is charged 

with. So while some of these questions may seem like why 

did they ask these questions or why are they posing it, 

the answer may be obvious. We do -- we're posing them 

because we have another audience to acknowledge and to 

provide respectful answers for. So we do appreciate your 

contributions and look forward to continuing down with the 

distribution side tomorrow. 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 
254 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

DR. JOHNSON: May we leave our materials in this 

room? 

MR. MASLIA: Absolutely. It'll be locked up. 

DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Anyone want to say anything? 

(No audible response) 

DR. JOHNSON: If not, thank you for a good day. 

(Whereupon, the proceeding was adjourned at 

approximately 5:08 p.m.) 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES