Public Briefing on the Remedy for the
Unitarian Universalist Church
Agenda Item #1. Welcome and Introductions: Mr. Field convened the meeting at 6:05 P.M. and introduced himself and the members of the panel: Jim Snyder, Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Remedial Program Manager; Paul Marchessault, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Remedial Project Manager; Len Pinaud, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Remedial Project Manager; and Spence Smith, IRP. Agenda Item #2. Agenda Review: Mr. Field said that the agenda would include a review of groundrules for questions and comments, a description of the Community Involvement and Decision process, a presentation of the selected alternative, and questions and comments from the audience. He also welcomed the attendees to stay after the meeting for one-on-one interaction with members of the panel. Agenda Item #3. Groundrules for Questions and Comments: Mr. Field said that if anyone had a question or comment to raise his hand and a microphone would be provided for that person to use. He also said that questions or comments should be limited to one at a time so that everyone could have a chance to speak. Additional questions could be asked after everyone else has had a chance to speak. Agenda Item #4. Community Involvement and the Decision Process: Mr. Field stated that initially the Citizen Teams, the technical staff at the IRP, contractors and independent scientists had worked on developing some alternatives to tackle the Ashumet Valley plume. These alternatives then went out to the public and the Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) developed a matrix which laid out the criteria to evaluate the alternatives - with consideration given to mass capture, ecological impact, neighborhood impact, etc. The matrix then went out to the public as did a variety of fact sheet packages. There were also newspaper articles, neighborhood meetings and meetings with the public-at-large. He said that about forty people and organizations wrote in their comments and preferences about the alternatives to the IRP during the Public Comment Period. At the end of the Public Comment Period, the three agencies and their managers came together to agree on a decision for the selected alternative. Mr. Field also said that there was a diversity of opinion found in the public comments and that it had been difficult to balance all of these comments with the needs of the different organizations and come up with a decision. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Snyder. Agenda Item #5. Alternative I with modifications - Jim Snyder, AFCEE: Mr. Snyder said that there were several aspects of the Decision Criteria Matrix and that aquifer restoration was the ultimate goal. However, other considerations needed to come into balance, one being the impact of construction on the neighborhoods. Another was the impact of inorganics - Mr. Snyder explained that the sources of the Ashumet Valley plume were the fire-training area and the former sewage treatment plant at the base property line by Ashumet Pond from which the inorganics, primarily nitrates, came. Also included in the balance were contaminant capture and hydrological impact. He said that computer modeling had been done to ensure that undue, unwanted hydrological or environmental impacts were not created by pumping too much or in the wrong locations. Mr. Snyder went on to say that pumping rates and capture rates were important issues. He said that another issue was the percentage of the plume that would be going into silts where it would then be considered "lost" or "blocked". He said that the selected alternative had a pumping rate of 2.3 million gallons per day while the other alternatives in the matrix ranged from 2.6 to 3.7 million gallons per day. He also said that the selected alternative would capture 70% of the volatile organic compound (VOC) contaminant mass - the other alternatives varied from 77 to 84% capture and the trade-offs were the hydrological and neighborhood construction impacts. Mr. Snyder stated that the estimated capital cost of Alternative I with modifications was $37.6 million with an annual operating and maintenance cost of $2 million. The $8.5 million nitrate off-set program was included in the $37.6 million figure. Agenda Item #6. The Pumping Scheme - Len Pinaud, MA DEP: Mr. Pinaud introduced himself and said that he would be presenting information about the central axial extraction fence in the selected alternative. He said that the central axial extraction fence began north of route 151 and extended to Hayway Road and that the fence passed through the Crane Wildlife Management Area and the golf course north of route 151. The reinjection portion of the fence was on either side of the plume. Mr. Pinaud also said that the central axial extraction fence met ecological and hydrological thresholds, reduced contaminant mass in the plume, restored the aquifer in a reasonable time frame, and minimized migration into the silts. He went on to say that the time frame was roughly 20 years and that the fence treated VOCs. He also said that the area which the fence passed through included the Ashumet Valley well field and that the implementation of the fence would necessitate close cooperation and coordination with the golf course and the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Mr. Pinaud then spoke about the Ashumet Pond extraction fence. He said that the fence was located northwest of Fisherman’s Cove boat ramp and included approximately four extraction wells. The purpose of the fence was to prevent a portion of VOCs and inorganics from the plume from discharging to Ashumet Pond. Agenda Item #7. Modifications - Jim Snyder, AFCEE and Paul Marchessault, US EPA: Mr. Snyder said that the modifications to Alternative I included additional investigation in the area south of Hayway Road and north of Carriage Shop Road which was Falmouth conservation land. He also said that the two other important modifications were the natural attenuation of the southern portion of the plume with monitoring and the innovative nitrates offset program. Mr. Snyder then spoke about Modification #1 - Hayway Road to Carriage Shop Road investigation. He said that during previous investigations there had been some areas of potentially higher concentrations of VOCs within this area. He said that additional wells would be installed there and that those new and previously existing wells would be sampled and monitored in an attempt to verify the presence or absence of high concentrations. He said that with this information, fate and transport modeling would be done. He explained that this was a more exact and elaborate type of modeling used for pump and treat scenarios which actually dealt with how contaminants migrate in the soil. He went on to say that information from the modeling and official data would be looked at to determine if further action would be necessary in the area. Mr. Snyder went on to speak about Modification #2 - Natural Attenuation in the Southern Portion of the Plume. He said that this had been a trade-off as there were typically low concentrations of contaminants in this part of the plume and it was located in a very residential area. It was decided that the neighborhood impact from construction and operation would not warrant going after that part of the plume, which was approximately 24% of the plume mass. Fate and transport modeling would be used to set up the natural attenuation monitoring program. He said that there were protocols established by the EPA and the Air Force to monitor natural attenuation - he said that it was a process, not just doing nothing. There would be regular reviews with the agencies to determine if further action should become necessary. Mr. Snyder then turned the presentation over to Mr. Marchessault. Mr. Marchessault introduced himself and stated that he would be talking about Modification #3 - the Nitrates Offset Program. He said that the concentrations of nitrates from the Ashumet Valley plume had been evaluated. He pointed out an area on the map where there were concentrations above drinking water standards and said that it had been considered what kind of concentrations of nitrates would be pulled into the plume and treated with the proposed remedial action. He said that the levels which would be pulled in in this area were roughly one to two parts per million and that the drinking water standards were ten. In lieu of performing nitrates treatment on this part of the plume, it was agreed by the agencies to do a nitrates offset. Mr. Marchessault went on to say that the Nitrates Offset Program would definitely benefit the affected community of Falmouth and would provide surface water quality improvements to the areas downgradient such as Green, Mill, Great, and Bourne ponds. He went on to say that the Air Force had agreed to fund $8.5 million over the next three to five years. In consultation with the affected community and a panel of experts, the best use of this money would be decided. Some preliminary ideas on how to use the money were 1) septic system upgrades to some of the homes in the area downgradient, 2) the extension of public sewer lines in order to take people off of private septic systems, 3) surface water treatment for nitrates at the ponds, and 4) constructed wetlands in certain areas downgradient. Mr. Marchessault said that there were some other considerations for the agencies - 1) institutional controls such as the areas downgradient where deed constrictions would have to be considered as well as the use of private wells and the possibility of putting these homeowners on town water, 2) minimizing impacts to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) test site, 3) maintaining maximum design flexibility, and finally, 4) the remediation of source areas. He went on to say that the first source of the Ashumet Valley plume was the Fire-training Area and that the cleanup of that area had been completed as of last week - all of the soil had been successfully treated. The second source was the Wastewater Treatment Plant and it was expected that action would be taken to remediate that source within the next year or so. Agenda Item #8. Questions & Answers and Comments: Comment: Virginia Valiela, Falmouth Selectman: Ms. Valiela said that by and large what had been presented tonight reflected a lot of the input which had come from the board of selectmen, from the scientists at Woods Hole and from many other people she had talked to during the comment period. She said that this was both a solid and sensible decision and one with which she was very comfortable. She also said that she wanted to highlight the following: 1) The Central Axial Fence goes right to the heart of the major concern that Falmouth had lost an extremely productive well field. The fence focuses on the restoration of that area. 2) There had been nearly 20 years of concern about phosphorous going into Ashumet Pond and to see a system that will actively address this issue, although it is an inorganic chemical, was very important. 3) There had been a great deal of concern by residents south of Carriage Shop Road about permanent destruction to their neighborhood and the effects on their property. What has been proposed minimized impact to those areas. There would still be some impact to residential areas, although much less - a few dozen houses instead of a few hundred. 4) A major accomplishment was the recognition by the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) and the Department of Defense (DOD) that nitrates matter, that they do have an environmental impact. 5) The $8.5 million was good news for the town of Falmouth. This is money that can be used wisely and thoughtfully - there will definitely be a committee developed to figure out the best way to use this money. 6) Under "other considerations", another element needs to be added - that is that there must be a very active program of explaining to the public why this alternative makes sense in terms of public health and ecology. The public in general has the mind set that capture should be as close to 100% as possible. The concept of "if we haven’t gotten it all, aren’t we in danger?" needs to be very clearly addressed. All of the residents who live between those two prongs of the plume need to understand, and this is backed by scientists at Woods Hole, that it does not make sense to capture those two prongs. The public needs to understand why this is a good and solid plan. Q: Reginald Soares, Hayway Road: How is the water transported from the extraction wells to the reinjection wells? A: Mr. Snyder: The water will run through a pipeline from the extraction well to the treatment plant and will then be piped again to be reinjected. Q: Gail MacRrae: Have the cranberry bogs in this area been tested? A: Mr. Snyder: The water in the Backus River has been sampled and there have been no contaminants found in the surface water, therefore the berries themselves have not been tested. Q: Alan White: Could there be a little more light shed on how you came up with this alternative? It was said earlier that there were only 40 written responses. How, as a group, did you try to weigh those responses? A: Mr. Snyder: The Air Force and the agencies put out information to the public about different alternatives, ways of dealing with the plume. Questions about risk, amount of capture, construction impacts, etc. were addressed - it was hoped that the public would comment on these issues. We did hear from a lot of individuals as well as agencies - the Barnstable County Science Advisory Panel, the Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod, the State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Crane Wildlife Management Area. He said that the Crane Wildlife Management Area had been particularly concerned about the disturbances to that area and so AFCEE had some discussions with the people who manage that property and showed them places where work had been done recently and the restoration after the construction work. This type of activity was all a part of the process. There were pros and cons from groups and individuals - we sifted through all of that and tried to assess what it all means along with the input from all the agencies. Q: Dennis LeBlanc, USGS: Will the water that’s being pumped be treated for nitrates? A: Mr. Snyder: There’s no treatment of nitrates for extracted water. Q: Mr. LeBlanc: Mr. Pinaud had mentioned the time frame for the central axial fence as about 20 years. Would that be 20 years to shut-off or to some other standard? A: Mr. Snyder: We have calculated that we will reach below maximum contaminant levels within a 20 year time frame. Mr. Field asked if there were any other questions. There were none. He then said that there was a fact sheet about the decision which people could pick up on their way out. He also said that the folks from Jacobs Engineering would be around after the meeting to answer technical questions one-on-one. Mr. Snyder had one final remark. He said that as part of the decision announcement, a Responsiveness Summary, that is written responses to written comments from the public, would be available and sent out the following week. Mr. Field then reminded the audience to sign the sign-in sheet if they had not yet done so. He thanked everyone for coming and adjourned the meeting at 6:42 P.M.
|
