Public Meeting on the
Welcome and Introductions: Mr. Whitaker convened the meeting at 7:00 P.M. He introduced himself and welcomed the attendees to the meeting. Mr. Whitaker said that the purpose of the meeting was to provide information regarding the Six Areas of Contamination (6 AOCs). He showed a slide of the schedule for the 6 AOCs( See attached). He then said that the public comment period began today, November 13, 1997. He went on to say that the location of the December 2, 1997 Public Hearing on the 6 AOCs had been changed from the Barnstable County Fairground Administration Building to the Mashpee High School and that the information regarding that change would be mailed out. He also said that the December 2, 1997 meeting was scheduled to begin at 6:00 P.M. with a posterboard session, followed by a formal public hearing at 7:00 P.M. He noted that the public hearing would provide an opportunity for the public to make oral comments that would become part of the public record. He added that all the comments received during the public comment period would be responded to in writing in the form of a responsiveness summary. Mr. Whitaker said that the responsiveness summary would be issued in early 1998. He also said that as that portion of the process was finalized, the Draft Record of Decision would be delivered to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. Mr. Whitaker showed a slide that listed several methods to submit comments( See attached). Mr. Whitaker explained the format of the meeting. He said that there were a lot of sites to discuss and that each AOC would be presented individually and would be followed by a short period for questions and answers. He said that a lot of information would be covered and that there would be additional time for questions and answers after the 6 AOCs had been presented. Mr. Whitaker then introduced Mr. Lee Perry, the Project Officer at the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE)/Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) for the 6 AOC’s. Mr. Perry said that the 6 AOC sites were different than any other sites which had been discussed up to this point. He said that the 6 AOCs dealt the sources of the plumes, not the plumes themselves. He said that most of the publicity that had been seen in the past had been about activities to contain the plume and preclude migration. He went on to say that the source areas to be discussed were actually sections of soil that would be cleaned up in order to stop the continuing formation of plumes. He said that data had been collected for several years and that various ways to clean up the contaminants had been formulated and compared. Mr. Perry said that the AFCEE/MMR felt that they now had a good "angle" on what needed to be done. He then introduced Mr. Stanley Reed of ABB to present the proposed actions. The Six Areas of Contamination Overview: Mr. Reed thanked the attendees for coming. He then showed a slide of the proposed plan for the 6 AOCs. Mr. Reed said that he would first describe the proposed plan and then describe the process. He referred to a packet that had been mailed out which described the Air Force’s proposed plan for the clean up of 6 AOCs at the MMR ( See attached). He said that the plan summarized the site history and the investigation and also described the candidate remedial alternatives. Mr. Reed said that the plan outlined the criteria needed to evaluate the alternatives and help with the selection process. He also said that the plan described the opportunity for public comment. Mr. Reed said that the proposed plan dealt with the following 6 AOCs:
Mr. Reed said that the 6 AOCs had been combined due to similar site histories and similar site contaminants and the fact that the sites were at a common place in the evaluation process. Mr. Reed then showed a map that depicted the locations of the 6 AOCs ( See attached). He said that four of the six sites were on the MMR property. He said that SD-2 was almost completely outside the MMR boundary and that half of SD-4 was on the MMR property. Mr. Sherman asked if the sources of those sites were on or off the base. Mr. Reed replied that the sources were all on the base. Mr. Reed went on to explain the superfund cleanup process ( See attached). He said that the superfund cleanup process started with a Discovery phase during which a preliminary assessment would be done to evaluate the study needs. Mr. Reed said that the next phase, the Assessment phase, would establish the presence or absence of contamination. The Assessment phase would be followed by the Investigation phase which would assess the "nature and extent" of the contamination as well as the actual or potential risks to human health and the environment. Mr. Reed said that the next phase, the Evaluation phase, included a feasibility study which would evaluate the remedial alternatives for reduction of risk. Mr. Reed said that the Decision phase would follow, and noted that this was where they currently were in the process. He went on to say that the Decision phase included the selection of a remedy through the proposed plan. He said that a Record of Decision (ROD) would also be prepared which would describe the requirement selection. He said that the last two phases were the actual cleanup and the removal of the site from the National Priorities List. Evaluated Remedial Alternatives: Mr. Reed said that a number of potential remedial approaches had been considered for the 6 AOC’s. He said that several had been eliminated because they did not apply to the site and that a total of five alternatives had been developed. Mr. Reed listed the five potential remedial alternatives:
Limited Action: Assumes that institutional controls i.e.: testing, access restrictions, deed restrictions, monitoring, etc. would be done. Biosparging Excavation and Asphalt-Batching Excavation and Off-site Treatment and Disposal Biosparging: Mr. Reed explained the biosparging approach for remediation ( See attached). He said that biosparging was useful for fuel-related contaminants that were subject to biodegradation. He added that biosparging would be useful for contaminants located below the water table or right at the water table in the area known as the "capillary fridge". He went on to say that this alternative involved the installation of air blowers and underground piping to inject air below the water table. Mr. Reed explained that the rising air bubbles would provide oxygen for naturally occurring bacteria to breath during degradation of site contaminants. He said that if needed, biosparging may include off-gas collection and treatment to control potential air pollution. Asphalt-Batching: Mr. Reed went on to explain Asphalt-Batching. He said that Asphalt-Batching had been successfully used as a treatment alternative at other MMR sites and that it involved the excavation of contaminated soil and sediment. He went on to say that once the excavated soil was deemed acceptable for Batching, it would be crushed and screened and then mixed with an asphalt emulsion. Mr. Reed noted that if the excavated soil exceeded acceptable levels it would be disposed of at a permitted off-base facility. He explained that the asphalt emulsion would coat the soil and encapsulate the contaminants, ultimately immobilizing them. He said that the stable asphalt-emulsion-coated product could be used as a sub-base for paving projects. Mr. Reed said that Asphalt-Batching not only treated the contaminants but also provided a useable end product. Evaluation Criteria: Mr. Reed said that in evaluating the various alternatives there were nine criteria that needed to be met and which fell under three different categories: I. Threshold Criteria ( See attached) 1. Overall protection of human health and the environment. 2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) Mr. Reed said that alternatives that met those two criteria would then be evaluated with: II. Primary Criteria ( See attached) 3. Long term effectiveness and permanence 4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants through treatment 5. Short-term effectiveness 6. Implementability 7. Cost III. Balancing Criteria ( See attached) 8. State acceptance 9. Community acceptance Mr. Reed said that the proposed plan fell under the Balancing Criteria category and that feedback from this meeting as well as from the public comment period, would be used to evaluate community acceptance. The 6 AOCs: FTA-2/LF-2: Mr. Reed gave a brief description and history of the FTA-2/LF-2 site ( See attached). He said that FTA-2 was located west of the southern end of Runway No. 5 and that it occupied approximately eleven acres. He noted that this AOC included a Firefighter-training area that had been developed on top of a buried municipal landfill. He went on to say that the landfill had received domestic refuse from MMR during the 1940’s and had since been covered. Mr. Reed said that investigations at that site had detected fuel and non-fuel-related organic contaminants in the soil. He said that the contaminants were primarily in areas downgradient of the FTA. He then said that the land fill had been covered a few times in the past and therefore the surface soil was not contaminated. Mr. Reed said that the risk evaluation had not identified any human health risks in exceedence of the state and federal evaluation criteria. However, the area downgradient of the FTA had deep contaminations which posed a threat of leeching into the groundwater. Mr. Reed went on to say that as a result of the potential risk, that site had been carried forward for remedial action. AFCEE’s preferred alternative for this AOC was biosparging with Ambient Air Monitoring. He said that biosparging would be effective at that area because of the fuel type contamination which was amenable to biodegradation. He went on to say that the area was relatively small and consequently the total mass of contamination was not great. He said that it would probably be unnecessary to install air treatment technologies. A member of the audience asked whether biosparging was a proven technology and if it had been used before. Mr. Reed replied that yes it was a proven technology. He went on to say that biosparging was being used more and more. He explained that biosparging relied on biological actions and took advantage of the bacteria’s naturally occurring processes. He also said that compared to some of the other alternatives, biosparging was relatively inexpensive. The audience member then asked if biosparging had been a successful technique. Mr. Reed replied that yes it had been successful and was commonly used at ground filling stations. Another audience member asked how the soil was determined to be unusable, and how it was disposed of. Mr. Reed replied that samples were taken every 100 cubic yards and analyzed for a number of chemicals, metals, and organic compounds. He said that if the levels were less than the criteria, they would go forward in the process. If the levels exceeded the criteria, the soil would be disposed of off-site. The audience member then asked what would the off-site disposal and treatment of that soil be. Mr. Reed replied that a number of firms took materials such as those mentioned and used different processes to dispose of them. He then said that the firms may also use the soil for fill. Mr. Perry said that there would not be any excavation at the FTA-2/LF-2 site. The audience member asked whether that was because there were only organics at the site. Mr. Reed replied that yes that was correct. He went on to say that excavation would not be amenable to the FTA-2/LF-2 site. Mr. Sherman asked whether air would be recovered with the biosparging technique or pumped into the ground and allowed to percolate out. Mr. Reed replied that it would all be recovered. He went on to say that biosparging relied on bacteria in the ground to create the fuel related compounds. He said that air would be pumped at a minimal rate to provide the bacteria just enough oxygen to use. Mr. Reed said that depending on the site and how the process ran, it may or may not be necessary to collect those gasses. He summarized that biosparging essentially helped bacteria’s naturally occurring process. A member of the audience asked whether air quality testing would take place during the biosparging process. Mr. Reed replied that yes it would, especially in the beginning. Another audience member asked what the remediation for the land fill area would be. Mr. Reed said that the land fill had primarily received household waste. He said that the land fill had been tested and the risk assessment had not identified compounds contributing to groundwater contamination or posing a risk above the evaluation criteria. The audience member then asked if the land fill had been capped. Mr. Reed replied that yes it had been capped. PFSA/FS-10/FS-11: Mr. Reed gave a brief description and history of the PFSA/FS-10/FS-11 site ( See attached). He said that the soil at the PFSA had been treated in three above-ground tanks and that the PFSA had been the primary fuel storage distribution area at the MMR since the 1950’s. Mr. Reed then said that FS-10 and FS-11 were major components of the site. He said that FS-10 had been a 2,000 gallon jet-fuel spill in one of the pumphouses. He then said that FS-11 had been an approximately 2,000 gallon fuel spill from tank overflow. Mr. Reed said that fuel related contaminants had been found in the surface soil and subsurface soil at this site. He said that the risk evaluation had determined that there was no human health risk above the evaluation criteria. He added that ecological risk had been evaluated and it had been determined that there was no ecological risk. However, the contamination detected in the subsurface soils had been potentially contributing to groundwater contamination. Consequently, Mr. Reed said, the site needed to be remediated. Mr. Reed then stated that the preferred alternative for this site was biosparging. He added that Off-gas Collection and Treatment would be needed because of the large volume of material in the soil at that site. Mr. Whitaker asked the members of the audience to identify themselves before making comments. He then asked if there were any questions. There were none and Mr. Reed went on to discuss the next site. SD-2/FS-6/FS-8: Mr. Reed explained SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 (See attached). He said that SD-2 extended from the base boundary south to Ashumet Pond. He went on to say that there had been an oil-water separator at the head of the ditch since the 1960’s. Mr. Reed said that SD-2 had received stormwater runoff from the PFSA, the aircraft maintenance ramp, and the hangars. He said that the ramps would have received fuel spills and solvents used to clean the aircraft. Mr. Reed said that investigations at this AOC had detected fuel related compounds, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and inorganic contaminants in surface soil and sediment. He said that a risk assessment had been done to evaluate potential risk associated with those contaminants. Mr. Reed said that maximum site concentrations were found primarily at sample identifier location #6 and #1 along the drainage ditch. He said that due to those findings, it had been determined that the site posed a potential risk. Mr. Reed said that those samples had represented a small area. He also said that the most direct approach would be Excavation and Asphalt-Batching of the soil and sediment to remove the potential sources of contamination to Ashumet Pond. Mr. Reed said that the upper area would be easier to reach than the lower area. He also said that activity would be minimal although some clearing of trees would be required to reach the lower site. He went on to say that the activity would include the removal of approximately a "dumptruck" full of material and would require a days worth of work. Mr. Sherman asked if the two areas being discussed were very concentrated. Mr. Reed replied that yes they were. Mr. Sherman then asked why they were so concentrated. Mr. Chuck Rossoll from ABB-ES replied that the two areas were depositional in that the contaminated water that had previously flowed through the area had "settled-out" there. Ms. Medeiros asked whether the oil/water separator shown at the top of the SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 map (See attached) was active. Mr. Reed said that yes it was currently active. Ms. Medeiros then asked whether it had an active "air way use" and whether that would change. Mr. Reed said that it would remain. He said that there were one or two 42 inch culverts that traveled from above the road to the oil/water separator. Ms. Medeiros asked whether it would still be used for oil/water separation once the area was cleaned out. She then asked if the problem was with the oil/water separator not separating. Mr. Reed said that that was not a problem. He went on to say that it was not known for sure when the contaminants had been deposited into the ditch. Mr. Reed said that base activities in the 1960’s had included poor control of oils and solvents. He also said that in the 1960’s there had not been an oil/water separator in use. Therefore the potential was great for "things" to travel down to the ditch. Mr. Minior from AFCEE/MMR said that the drainage ditches were currently active, taking the run-off from the ramp area. He then said that the run-off would go through the oil/water separator and any excess flow would go down toward the pond. Mr. Minior said that the 102nd Fighter Wing (FW) had a project under design to eliminate those ditches. He said that the 102nd FW wanted to create an infiltration basin on the base to "catch" the excess storm water, allowing it to percolate down onto base property. Mr. Minior said that an update on the status of the project could be provided. Mr. Sherman asked whether the run-off that would percolate into the ground was untreated. Mr. Minior said that the water would go through an oil/water separator prior to entering the water filtration basin. He went on to say that it would be the same as the present set-up, however the flow to the pond would be cut off. A member of the audience asked about Asphalt-Batching whether the unsuitable soil would be mixed with asphalt and used as the first coat of asphalt, or dense grade. Mr. Reed replied that the "emulsion" would be used as a subgrade paving material. Mr. Rossoll said that Asphalt-Batching had previously been used on the base. He said that it was a proven technology and worked well. Mr. Minior added that a top coat, or a one and a half inch overlay, would be applied over the asphalt "emulsion" acting as a "binder". Ms. Kathy Donohue, a Bourne resident, asked whether the soil contaminated with PCBs would be used in that process. Mr. Reed replied that it would not. He said that the threshold criteria was 2 parts per billion (ppb). Mr. Rossoll added that soils that did not meet the threshold criteria would not be suitable for Asphalt-Batching. Mr. Reed said that the data available to evaluate the alternative did not indicate a problem with PCBs. He also said that the slides had not quantified the contaminants that had been found. SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4: Mr. Reed said that SD-3 had been constructed in the 1950’s to receive the discharge from storm drains serving aircraft hangars and from several streets west of Grainville Avenue. He said that FTA-3 had been used for fire-training exercises, and subsequently had been back-filled with construction debris, fill, and coal ash. Mr. Reed referred to a map (See attached). and pointed out the location of the former Central Heating Plant which also discharged into SD-3. He then pointed out the coal ash disposal area which had received coal ash from the Central Heating Plant. Mr. Reed explained that the coal ash had been used as a filler. Mr. Reed went on to say that the investigations at AOC SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4 had detected fuel and coal related contamination in sediment and in surface and subsurface soil samples. He said that approximately 40,000 yards of material had been removed from the site in 1994. He then said that the excavated soil had been used as subgrade fill to build up the slope under the cover at LF-1. Mr. Reed also said that the evaluation of sampling data at AOC SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4 indicated that there would have been a risk in the soils had they remained. He said that based on the remaining site data, there was no human or ecological risk. Mr. Reed went on to say that sampling had been done when the soils were removed and there had not been a lot of sampling done around the edges. Therefore, the preferred alternative was Confirmation Sampling with Contingency of Excavation and Asphalt-Batching. He explained that surface soil samples would be taken to confirm whether there was contamination in the area. Mr. Reed said that, based on the criteria, the surface soils would be removed and treated. He said that the primary contaminants were expected to be inorganic and semi-volatile organic compounds which were compatible with the Asphalt-Batching process. Mr. Reed asked whether there were any questions. There were none. SD-4: Mr. Reed gave a brief description and history of SD-4 (See attached). He said that SD-4 was located on the far east side of the installation and that the drainage way extended from Riley Road to Johns Pond. He then said that in 1968 an oil/water separator had been constructed at SD-4, south of Riley Road, to catch flooding material. Mr. Reed said that there was also wetland area along the drainage way. Mr. Sherman pointed to an area on the map and asked whether it was the ammunition storage area built approximately four years ago. Mr. Replied that yes it was, however he thought it was much older than that. It was noted that there had been an addition to the ammunition storage area several years ago. Mr. Reed said that because of the sandy soils at the storm drainage ditches, a lot of rain would be required to cause any runoff to travel down the ditches because rain infiltrated rapidly into soil. He went on to say that SD-4 had received runoff from aircraft hangars, runway, and ramps. Mr. Reed said that investigations at SD-4 had detected fuel related compounds, pesticides, PCBs, and inorganic compounds in surface soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater. He then said that based on the risk assessment, human health risks from exposure to average contaminant concentrations in soil under existing exposure conditions did not exceed federal and state risk management guidelines. Mr. Reed said that the proposed remedial action for SD-4 was Excavation and Asphalt-Batching of Sediments. He said that inorganics, especially lead, would be targeted as contaminants of concern. He also said that the results of the pre-excavation sampling would be used to identify areas for remediation. Mr. Reed said that following the evaluation of potential toxicity, a decision would be made as to whether to "dig out" the pond or not. He said that the water would be removed and Asphalt-Batching would be used for treatment. Mr. Sherman said that it appeared that the Air Force was legally immune from state and local bylaws despite the fact that they had voluntarily cooperated with the Mashpee Conservation Commission. He said that Jacobs Engineering had been particularly good about providing frequent updates. He then asked whether any thought had been given to wildlife impacts, ecological impacts, and remediation effects to the ecosystem. Mr. Reed replied that those were definite concerns. He went on to say that if excavation of the pond occurred, there would first be an assessment of whether the metals, lead in particular, were available to wildlife. He said that if excavation did occur there would be remediation and restoration of the area. Mr. Sherman asked whether that effort would be voluntary, if the Air Force would consider that a gesture toward the community. Mr. Reed replied that restoration had been included with the selected alternative and was required by the Massachusetts Wetlands Act. Mr. Sherman said that he had been told that the Air Force was not subject to that act because of the agreement between the MMR and the town. He went on to say that he had been told that the Air Force had voluntarily agreed to restoration, and asked whether it was mandatory. Mr. Reed replied that yes it was mandatory. Mr. Sherman asked whether the local town conservation commission would be consulted regarding this issue, and whether input regarding remediation would be allowed. Mr. Minior replied that this project would be handled the same way in which the other projects were handled. He said that included coordination, communication, and community involvement. Mr. Minior said that AFCEE had looked at the substantive requirements, however a formal permit had not been necessary. He said that AFCEE needed to work in concert with the conservation commission to ensure that everyone could be in agreement. Mr. Sherman reiterated that things had worked out well so far and he was quite satisfied with the efforts he had seen. However, this seemed more intrusive and more evasive than anything discussed before. Mr. Sherman asked whether restoration and mitigation would be addressed. Mr. Minior replied that that was the goal. Mr. Sherman questioned the term "goal". Mr. Minior said that a decision needed to be made as to whether removal of the pond should be attempted. He then said that it may turn out that the trade-off would be leaving "a little bit more" to avoid destroying something so valuable. Mr. Reed said that an employee of ABB had gone to the site earlier and said that it was a beautiful area. He then said that Mr. Sherman was not alone in his concern. Ms. Valiela said that there were a number of contamination sites and wetland areas in Falmouth. She went on to say that a good cooperative arrangement was in place between Jacobs Engineering and the Conservation Commission and that the pattern had been set in regard to fully working with the local Conservation Commission. Mr. Schuyler Wires asked, in regard to SD-4, whether there was an outflow heading south into the northern tip of Johns Pond. Mr. Reed said yes and that the drainage way continued to Johns Pond. Mr. Wires asked whether the oil contamination was stopping at the un-named pond or traveling to Johns Pond. Mr. Reed said that the sampling data had indicated that it was stopping in that area. He also said it was not as great a concern as the potential for metals in Johns Pond. Mr. Sherman asked whether this continued to the Lakeside Trailer Park. Mr. Reed said that it continued all the way to Johns Pond. Mr. Rossoll said that the samples that had been taken further down stream did not show contamination. He said that samples may have shown slight detects - nothing, however, that would cause a risk. He said that contaminants would not continue flowing into the ponds because the oil/water separator would take them out of the water. Mr. Sherman commented that the swale continued all the way to Johns Pond. Mr. Reed concurred. Ms. Medeiros asked what analysis had been used to evaluate the oil and grease. Mr. Reed said that volatile analysis, semi-volatile analysis, and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) analysis had been used. Ms. Medeiros asked whether a TPH had been done. Mr. Reed said that TPH had been included in sampling throughout the area. SD-5/FS-5: Mr. Reed said that SD-5 was located on the western side of Runway No. 5(See attached). He said that it extended from North Inner Road to Lingley Avenue. Mr. Reed said that immediately below SD-5 was LF-2. He said that this site also included a central drainage swale. Mr. Reed said that the former Non-destructive Inspection Laboratory and the Corrosion Control Shop had discharged materials into a dry well that ultimately leeched into the ground. He went on to say that the Eastern Aquafarm and the Western Aquafarm had been used to fuel airplanes and had contained four 50,000 gallon tanks. Mr. Reed discussed various contributors of contamination(See attached). He said that in the 1960’s three refueling aircraft had been destroyed in a fire resulting in a 15,000 gallon fuel spill (FS-5) which washed into the storm drain leading to SD-2. Mr. Reed said that this site contained organic and inorganic contaminants and that most of the contamination was shallow. He then said that the preferred alternative was Excavation and Asphalt-Batching. Mr. Wires asked whether SD-5 was the site that terminated at the northeast corner of Johns Pond. Mr. Rossoll referred to the bottom portion of the map in the handout (See attached) and said that storm drains at SD-5 went to SD-1 and then to Ashumet Pond. Mr. Wires said that he had inquired about the storm drain that ran along Briarwood Beach. Mr. Carl Gustafson from Jacobs Engineering said that SD-4 went into Johns Pond and SD-2 went into Ashumet Pond. Mr. Reed briefly explained the public involvement process (See attached). He said that the public comment period would run until December 15, 1997. He encouraged people to submit comments regarding the proposed plan at the public hearing scheduled on December 2, 1997. He added that comments could also be submitted in writing. Mr. Reed said that the Air Force was required to respond to comments in writing. He again emphasized the importance of public comments to the process. Mr. Larry Uchmanowicz said that, in a second hand way, he had contributed to every problem on the MMR. He explained that he had worked in the buildings that were heated by coal. He said that he had been stationed at the base when fire-training had taken place and that he had been pleased to see it. He said that he had been in an aircraft accident and that the fire-training had saved his life. Mr. Uchmanowicz said that he had lived on the base and had brought household garbage to the dump. He then said that the dump on the base was no different than any local dump. He also said that no one had ever deliberately tried to contaminate anything. Mr. Reed agreed. Mr. Uchmanowicz then said that the aircraft activity on the base today was very slight compared to what it had been like when he was there. He said that present base activity was not even ten percent of the activity there during the Cold War. Mr. Whitaker asked if there were any further questions. There were none and the meeting was adjourned at 8:01 P.M.
|
