CS-10 Source Area Public Meeting/Hearing
Sandwich Public Library
October 1, 1998, 6:30 P.M. – 7:30 P.M.
Meeting Minutes

Ms. Larkin convened the meeting at 6:35 PM and welcomed the attendees. Ms. Larkin explained that the meeting would begin with a general information session during which questions would be welcome, and then, after a short break, the public hearing segment of the meeting would begin. Attendees were informed that their comments would be officially received for the record during the public hearing segment of the meeting. Attendees were requested to identify themselves when making a comment for the record.

Agenda Item #2. Chemical Spill-10 (CS-10) Source Operable Unit Summary

(See attachment #1, which includes slides shown during the presentation)

Ms. Larkin announced that Mr. Aker would present the background information on the site and then open the floor to questions and discussion. Mr. Aker greeted the attendees and stated that the topic he would be presenting was a summary of the CS-10 Source Operable Unit and the various recovery activities that have taken place to date on the site. Mr. Aker identified the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) boundary and the Boeing Michigan Aeronautical Research Center (BOMARC) site pictured on the CS-10 Source Operable Unit slide. He stated that the CS-10 Source Operable Unit would be summarized by a presentation of the following topics: operational history, operable unit descriptions, investigation summary, feasibility study summary, and the proposed plan summary.

Mr. Aker gave an overview of the history of the BOMARC site. He stated that BOMARC had been in operation from 1963-1970; prior to that, the site had been used as a small-arms pistol range until 1958. He said that BOMARC area structures and activities included: missile launch facilities, maintenance facilities, electrical power generation, fuel storage, and numerous electrical transformers. Continuing his overview of the history of the site, Mr. Aker stated that the site had been occupied as a Unit Training Equipment Site (UTES), where 350 vehicles were currently maintained, from 1978 to the present. He stated that in order to facilitate the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process the CS-10 Source Operable Unit had been divided into four operable units; CS-10A, CS-10B, CS-10C, and CS-10D. Mr. Aker described CS-10C as a tank wash area and CS-10D as the groundwater unit that would be addressed in the plume response plan. He stated that CS-10A and CS-10B were the main areas that would be addressed during the meeting.

Mr. Aker stated that the CS-10A site was comprised of two stormwater discharge areas and several buildings that were used by the BOMARC operation for cleaning, assembling, and maintaining missiles. He described the structures at the CS-10B area as: missile launcher shelters, an ordnance storage building, a compressor building, and a stormwater discharge area.

Mr. Aker then outlined the current investigative summary. He stated that during 1995 and 1996 the drainage structure removal program (DSRP) was conducted. He said that this program consisted of removing an excess of 185 drainage structures including leaching fields, floor drains, and septic systems. Mr. Aker commented that he believed this to be quite a significant effort to remove numerous sources on the base. He stated that of the 20 structures on the site, 17 had been addressed; in 15 of the cases the contaminants had been removed and contained through an asphalt batching process. He stated that two of the structures had been filled with concrete and that the remaining three structures had not been addressed because of their location, however, a means by which to access them was being examined.

Mr. Aker said that in 1997 a remedial investigation was conducted at the source. He said that a preliminary groundwater investigation had been conducted as early as 1992, and that a feasibility study had been submitted in 1996. He noted that, due to outstanding comments, this feasibility study had yet to be finalized. Mr. Aker stated that the proposed plan, which was delivered to the public on September 9, 1998, essentially summarized the remedial investigation and the feasibility study. He reported that the public comment period on the proposed plan began on September 14, 1998, and would end on October 15, 1998.

Mr. Aker made reference to the slide depicting the nine source areas of contamination at CS-10/Fuel Spill-24 (FS-24). He said that only one of the detail or source areas was in the BOMARC area and that the remaining eight sites were in the UTES area. He stated that most of the sites posed ecological risks, however, two of the sites (E & F) posed a potential human health risk for future residential scenarios in those locations.

Mr. Karson requested that Mr. Aker elaborate on the term "future residential scenarios." Mr. Aker responded by stating that "future residential scenarios" referred to the possibility that base property may be turned over to the public for development at some point in the future.

Mr. Aker referred to the slide of the Detail A source area, the abandoned electrical switching station located in the BOMARC area. He stated that the contaminants of concern (COC) at this site were total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and metals contained in shallow soils. He said that there were no human health risks exceeding guidelines at this particular site; however, there were potential ecological risks from the soils. He said that the proposed remedy for this site was to excavate the soils to the depth of approximately 12 feet and implement on-site asphalt batching. Mr. Aker clarified that the term "on-site" referred to MMR property.

Mr. Aker referred to the slide of the Detail B source area, surface soil staining adjacent to building 4641. He stated that the COCs at Detail B source area were semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and TPH in the surface soils. He stated that there was a potential human health risk in the event that these contaminants were to leach into the groundwater and the location became developed residentially. He also noted that there was a potential ecological risk from the soils. Mr. Aker stated that the proposed remedy was to excavate the site and implement on-site asphalt batching.

Mr. Aker referred to the slide of Detail Area C, the underground storage tank adjacent to building 4602. He stated that, prior to implementing the proposed remedy, the soil would be excavated, the storage tank removed, and the soil beneath the tank would be sampled for contamination. He said that there were some potential human health risks because the solvents and the TPH were deep enough to contaminate groundwater. He stated that the proposed remedy at this site was thermally enhanced soil vapor extraction. Mr. Aker described this process by stating that heated air would travel through an injection well into the soil where the contamination would be volatilized, expunged through an extraction well, and treated with a granular phased activated carbon to non-detect.

Mr. Aker referred to the slide of Detail Area D, the waste oil disposal site, where TPH and metal contamination in shallow soils presented a potential human health risk. He stated that the proposed remedy for this site was to excavate soils and implement on-site asphalt batching.

Mr. Aker referred to a slide of Detail Area E, a storm sewer outfall drainage ditch. He stated that the main COCs at this site were polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, metals, fuel-related compounds, and TPH. He said that at this site there were both potential human health and ecological risks and that the proposed remedy was to asphalt batch the soils that would be excavated.

Mr. Aker referred to a slide of Detail Area F, a storm sewer outfall impoundment. He stated that the contaminants present were: PAHs, PCBs, 2-methylnaphthalene, and manganese; these presented both a potential human health and ecological risk. He said that the proposed remedy at this site was to excavate sediment, treat the water, pump the water out of the retention pond, treat it at a sewage treatment plant, and attempt to restore the wetland to its natural state.

Mr. Aker referred to a slide of Detail Area G, the site of a former underground storage tank that had been excavated between 1985 and 1986. During the excavation, an oil spill of less than 500 gallons had occurred; the soil had been excavated, screened, and sampled immediately, and the excavation had been filled with debris and clean soil. Mr. Aker stated that this was an area where the possibility of ecological risk had not been determined. He said that the area was being monitored.

Mr. Aker referred to Detail Area H, the soil staining next to building 4642. He stated that the COCs at this site were chlorinated solvents and fuel-related contamination in surface soils. There was a potential for human health risk due to the contaminants leaching into the groundwater; the proposed remedy at this site was to continue to monitor the soil.

Mr. Aker referred to the slide of Detail Area I, an area used for the storage of degreasing equipment. He stated that at this site the COCs were solvent-related compounds, SVOCs, and metals in shallow soils. He said that there was a potential ecological risk at this site and a potential for contaminants to leach to groundwater. The proposed remedy at this site was to asphalt batch the excavated soils on-site.

Mr. Aker then described the current radiological survey that was being performed by Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) at the CS-10 source area. He stated that there had been no detection of radionuclides during the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s (MA DEP's) screening of the site. He outlined the purpose of the current study being conducted by the ORNL; first, to search for evidence of radiation resulting from the weapons previously stored on-site and second, to supplement the feasibility study. Mr. Aker reported that the ORNL survey included: collection of soil samples in drainage and unpaved areas; measurements in launcher shelters, support buildings and on pavements; and collection of background measurements at a similar site for comparison.

Mr. Aker referred to a map of the area where the ORNL survey would be taking place. He identified the silos, support buildings, unaffected buildings, and a paved area.

Mr. Aker described additional activities at the CS-10 source area site. He stated that there had been no detection of asbestos in the soil at the nine source areas that had been tested. Also, there had been no detection of explosives in seven of the nine areas that had been tested. Mr. Aker noted that there were future plans to sample the drainage swale that originates at Detail Area F and runs across Greenway Road, and into the adjacent neighborhood.

Mr. Aker outlined the CS-10 source area schedule:

• September 9, 1998, the proposed plan was presented to the public
• September 10, 1998, a public meeting was held at the Sandwich Public Library
• September 14, 1998, the public comment period began
• October 1, 1998, a public hearing was being conducted
• October 14, 1998, the public comment period would end
• November 30, 1998, a draft record of decision (ROD) would be issued

Ms. Larkin gave an update on the asbestos removal at the old power building. She said that she had previously given out information indicating that the asbestos removal would be starting in the next two weeks. Due to difficulties with the contracting process, however, it was necessary to repeat the bidding for the contract. Hence, the asbestos removal would be delayed four to six weeks. Ms. Larkin stated that the public would be updated on the progress of the asbestos cleanup as soon as information became available.

Questions and Answers

Ms. Pamela McClung asked if the drainage structure that runs under Greenway Road into the easement on 18 Pebble Path had been removed, cleaned, or filled during the DSRP in 1996.

Mr. Aker responded by clarifying that the structure at Detail Area F was not a drainage structure, but, in fact, a containment pool for run off. He stated that the remedy that had been proposed for that site was to asphalt batch the sediment on-site, drain the containment pool, treat the water at a sewage treatment plant, and attempt to restore the wetland to its natural state.

Ms. McClung commented that she believed that the drainage structure should be completely filled.

Mr. Aker clarified that Ms. McClung was referring to a culvert that runs from the retention pond beneath Greenway Road. He stated that it was planned that the culvert would be filled; sandbags had been put in place as a temporary measure. Mr. Aker asked Mr. Gonser to confirm this information. Mr. Gonser confirmed that sandbags had been put in place and that there were plans to fill the culvert with concrete, perhaps as soon as the next day.

Ms. McClung asked if both sides of the culvert would be filled. Mr. Aker stated that he believed this was true. Ms. McClung commented that there were no sandbags on her property. Mr. Gonser stated that sandbags had been placed only at the inlet section. Ms. McClung stated that this still posed a danger to children in the neighborhood.

Ms. Larkin requested that others in the audience be given the opportunity to make inquiries before Ms. McClung continued with her extensive list of questions.

Mr. Drum stated that he was concerned about the possibility of contaminants in the soil at the drainage ditch. He asked when and how this issue might be addressed. Mr. Aker replied that the area in question would be tested; an operation would take place that would entail sampling and analyzing surface soils for SVOCs, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), inorganics, explosives, pesticides, and PCBs. Mr. Drum asked if there had been any research conducted to determine whether the drainage swale had ever been used as an outlet. Mr. Aker responded by stating that the water would have reached a level of two to three feet before that became a concern. He said that it had been determined from speaking to individuals, (which he noted was not a scientific procedure), that the water had never reached those levels.

Mr. Payne asked from which areas soil samples had been taken. Mr. Aker replied that initially soils in the drainage ditch would be sampled for the aforementioned contaminants. If evidence of contamination was found in the drainage ditch, then the rest of the swale area in the neighborhood would be tested. If there were no detection of contaminants in the drainage ditch soil, however, then it would be assumed that there was no contamination elsewhere.

Ms. Judge commented that she had attended the public information meeting in July and had left with the impression that the CS-10 source area was one of the largest and most complex sites that had been identified so far. She said that she had been assured that there would be an adequate number of public information meetings. She felt, however, that the CS-10 site was not being allotted an appropriate amount of time, attention, or scrutiny. She asked if a radiological survey was being performed at the site. Mr. Aker replied that the site was being tested for radionuclides.

Ms. Judge asked what type of instruments were used for this testing. Mr. Aker requested that Mr. Halford of ORNL answer Ms. Judge’s query. Mr. Halford stated that the surface measurements were determined by using detection equipment, which analyzes for low-energy gamma radiation. He said that soil samples were being collected for isotopic analysis, which would be completed in the next month. Ms. Judge asked if the technology existed to take deeper soil samples. Mr. Halford replied that it was possible to take deeper soil samples.

Ms. McClung commented that there had been no testing at the easement on her property and asked why testing had not been performed when the site was first discovered. Mr. Aker replied that there had been no indication that a flow ever ran through the culvert; therefore, at the time, it was determined that testing was not warranted. Ms. McClung commented that Mr. Aker had previously stated that there was no scientific evidence to confirm that a flow had not run through the culvert; she asked him if it would not be better to err on the side of caution, considering that the situation involved a residential community. Mr. Aker explained that, two years ago, he had used a photo ionization detector to screen for COCs at the site in question. He stated that, though it was not an official sampling, he had found no evidence of contaminants in the area. Ms. McClung requested that Mr. Aker provide documentation stating that the area in question was found to be clean. Mr. Aker agreed to do so.

Ms. McClung asked if the Pebble Path and Belmont Avenue land was ever used for military purposes. Mr. Aker replied that, Mr. Ray Cottengaim of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was currently investigating the boundaries in question. Mr. Aker also noted that he, too, was examining aerial photos of the area dating back to 1935 to determine past activity on the site.

Ms. McClung asked for clarification that the site had been used for gunfire training prior to being used for BOMARC and UTES. Mr. Aker confirmed that, prior to 1958, it was reported that the site had been used as a small-arms range. Ms. McClung reported that she had found ammunition on her property. She said that last spring the Air National Guard (ANG) had employed metal detectors to screen her property and had not found additional ammunition. Two weeks after the ANG examined her property, however, her children found more bullets in the yard. She inquired whether there were plans to re-evaluate the site with more sophisticated equipment in the future. Mr. Aker stated that this was not currently planned; however, the option could be considered if it seemed that there was a potential source in the area. Mr. Aker asked Ms. McClung to describe the ammunition that she had discovered on her property. Ms. McClung stated that the bullet was 2 to 2 ½ inches long; she said that she had turned it over to range control.

Ms. McClung asked whether the engineering team that would perform cleanup at the sources, especially at site F, would wear protective equipment and, if so, what type. Mr. Aker responded that the individuals on the team would be wearing Tyvec suits to protect them from any contaminants. If necessary, the team would also use respirators. Mr. Aker noted that he doubted that respirators would be required. Ms. McClung asked if the same kind of protection would be made available to her children since her property was located approximately 150 feet away from site F. Mr. Aker stated that there was no reason to believe that there would be any danger to her children. Ms. McClung said that she found it difficult to believe that none of the chemicals would be airborne. Mr. Aker explained that most of the areas were damp, and those that were not would be moistened to limit the particulate that could become airborne. He also noted that the area would be covered with polyethylene.

Mr. Karson made reference to another area, which had undergone on-site remediation last year. He stated that 48,000 tons of soil contaminated with solvents and fuels, compounds that volatilize, had been excavated from the site. He explained that the situation at CS-10 was different because the chemicals in the soil were more likely to adhere to the soil. He also noted that at any remediation site there would be an intense air-quality monitoring program in place. If the air quality reached unsafe levels, activity on the site would be terminated. Mr. Karson also mentioned that all cleanup procedures to be implemented at the sites were approved by the MassDEP and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).

Ms. McClung asked how frequently the air would be monitored. Mr. Karson stated that at the fire training area, in a project that lasted over a year, the air was monitored continuously; similar monitoring would take place at the CS-10 site. Mr. Aker commented that the contamination was much more severe at the fire training area. Ms. McClung asked if there was a procedure for notifying the residential community if dangerous conditions arose. Mr. Aker responded by saying that residents would be notified "door-to-door." Ms. McClung asked if there was not a quicker way to notify residents and suggested that a siren be used. Mr. Aker replied that the use of a siren could be considered.

Ms. Walker asked if air monitoring at the base boundary, near the residential area, was planned. Mr. Aker responded that air monitoring at the boundary was not planned, however, it could be considered. Ms. Walker noted that she would request air monitoring at the base boundary during the formal public comment period.

Ms. McClung requested clarification of certain items on the chart on page six of the proposed plan (see attachment #2). Specifically, she asked for clarification of the terms "provides short-term effectiveness" and "partially meets criteria." Mr. Aker explained that the term "provides short-term effectiveness" refers to how quickly the remedy will clean up the contamination to meet acceptable levels. Ms. McClung asked why four of the five cleanup processes were categorized as "partially meets criteria." Ms. Rottero, of HAZWRAP, explained that the short-term effectiveness does not completely meet criteria because the soil vapor extraction that was being performed at the Detail C area was lengthier than other processes.

Ms. McClung asked for a definition of PCBs and inquired if they were a volatile substance. Mr. Aker replied that PCBs referred to polychlorinated biphenyls, a non-volatile substance that was formerly used as a coolant for transformers.

Ms. McClung asked Mr. Aker to elaborate on the excavation process. Mr. Aker explained that the excavation would be implemented with typical excavation equipment; the soil would be excavated to a depth of 12 feet. Ms. McClung asked if excavation would take place on particularly windy days. Mr. Aker replied that part of the health and safety plans required that work on drilling projects would halt during certain weather conditions; he assumed that the same standards would be set for the excavation process. Ms. McClung asked what specific wind speed was required to halt work at a site. Mr. Aker replied that he would have to do some research to determine the exact velocity. Ms. McClung asked what the distance was between Greenway Road and source E. Mr. Aker estimated the distance to be 400 feet.

Ms. Rottero added that the project would involve dust-abatement requirements that would be met by instituting a dust-abatement program during the process in order to ensure that the dust generated would be minimized. She also stated that many techniques, such as quenching, would be used to minimize dust at the site. Ms. Walker asked for a definition of quenching. Ms. Rottero explained that quenching was a process in which water, or some other material, is applied to the soil to keep it from becoming airborne.

After examining a map of the source E area, Mr. Aker informed Ms. McClung that source E was 500 to 532 feet away from Greenway Road.

Ms. Walker stated that she wanted to hear the opinions of representatives from the MassDEP and the US EPA regarding the long-term safety of cold asphalt batching.

Ms. Larkin asked for a definition of S-1 standards. Mr. Borci replied that S-1 standards were the most stringent levels mandated by the state and were usually used on residential properties.

Ms. Grillo referred to the chart in the Cold Mix Asphalt Batching fact sheet (see attachment #3) that summarized the allowable contaminant levels in soil-recycling permits issued by the MA DEP. She pointed out that only soils with the allowable amount of contaminants would be asphalt batched.

Ms. Musgrave stated that the document to which Ms. Grillo referred, as well as other pertinent documents, were available at all of the main town libraries and on the web site.

Ms. Judge asked if the standards to which Ms. Grillo referred, were the same as Soil Target Cleanup Levels (STCLs) (see attachment # 4). Mr. Aker replied that the two standards were different. He stated that STCLs were risk based cleanup levels for constituents that do not pose a risk to human health and the environment. Ms. Judge asked if standards developed for MMR were as strict as those for private property. Mr. Aker replied that the standards were as strict. Ms. Judge stated that she was uncomfortable with the asphalt batching process being completed on the base; she asked if the process could not be completed off site. She also questioned where the asphalt would be used after the process was completed. Mr. Aker explained that it would be batched on site after it met a certain criteria; the asphalt would then be used for paving projects on base. The asphalt batching product would be capped with 2 to 3 inches of regular asphalt. If the soils did not meet the criteria mandated by the US EPA, they would be transported off site and treated at an approved facility. Ms. Judge asked if the asphalt was really needed at MMR. Mr. Aker stated that the asphalt was not necessarily needed; however; it was the most economically feasible remedy and the base could always find a use for it. Mr. Karson added that uses for the asphalt on base had been identified, one of them which was, repaving roads in the United States Coast Guard (USCG) housing area and possibly Back Road in Mashpee. He commented that the CS-10 source area was just one of many sites that would make use of an asphalt batching process as part of the large soil cleanup at the base.

Ms. McClung asked if the Town of Sandwich had been notified in 1992 when the 9 source sites in UTES were identified. Mr. Aker stated that a number of public meetings were held to inform selectmen and concerned residents. Ms. McClung asked if these meetings were held in 1992 through 1993. Mr. Aker replied that the meetings took place in 1993.

Ms. McClung asked at what depth testing took place beneath the water at source F. Mr. Aker replied that the test took place at the depth of one foot or less. Ms. McClung asked if any special precautions were being put into effect during the excavation of a 50-foot area near the storm drain outfall where there were several areas of contamination. Mr. Aker stated that, although there were several different constituents in the area, none were in concentrations high enough to warrant any special precautions during excavation. He said that the site would be monitored continuously and work would be discontinued if unacceptable levels presented any risk. Ms. McClung noted that the project was slated to begin in June and asked if environmental heat would interfere with the chemicals. Mr. Aker replied that most of the constituents present at the site such as SVOCs, metals, and PCBs were non-volatile compounds.

Ms. Larkin requested that, in the interest of time, the question-and-answer period be concluded promptly to allow adequate time for the formal public hearing. She suggested that the panel answer a few more questions from the audience and, after a brief intermission, reconvene so that the members of the public had the opportunity to state their official comments on the proposed plan, for the record. She noted that representatives from MMR and other state agencies would be available after the public hearing to answer any additional questions.

Ms. McClung asked whether Sandwich officials had attended the public meetings that were held in 1993 to notify the public of the contamination at the UTES site and asked if those records were available. Mr. Aker replied he could not recall who was in attendance at the meetings; he did recall, however, that all principal planners had been invited to the various public meetings and the records were available.

Ms. Judge proposed that the meeting continue to the public hearing session without an intermission. Ms. Larkin maintained that the formal public hearing would begin after a five-minute recess.

Dr. Feigenbaum noted that he had not been able to find information on soil concentrations as Mr. Aker had discussed as part of a presentation to the Joint Process Action Team (JPAT). Mr. Aker responded by stating that the information to which Dr. Feigenbaum was referring was contained in the proposed plan document (see attachment #2). Ms. Larkin confirmed that the information was contained in the last two pages of the proposed plan.

Ms. McClung asked if the MMR had ever considered notifying her, as a homeowner whose property abuts the CS-10 Source Area of the findings at the site. Mr. Aker replied that there existed an Installation Restoration Program (IRP) mailing list composed of people who had expressed an interest in receiving information about the sites; the people on the mailing list had been notified. He stated that at public meetings individuals were solicited to add their names to the IRP mailing list, especially those whose property abutted source areas. He noted that it was apparent that Ms. McClung was not on this list or that she had not been effectively notified. He said that any informational materials that Ms. McClung requested could be made available to her. Ms. McClung stated that she had occupied her current residence for the last seven years and that until 1994, when homes had been built on Belmont Avenue, hers was the only residence in the area. She also said that she believed that an investigation of the past uses of the recently developed property was necessary to protect the families that now reside there. Mr. Aker stated that an investigation was currently under way. Ms. Larkin mentioned that aerial photographs would be examined to determine the past uses of the property in question.

Ms. McClung asked if the drainage structure behind her property would be tested for contamination within the next month. Mr. Aker replied that the structure would be tested in the next few weeks. Ms. McClung asked if testing on her property would take place at the same time. Mr. Aker stated that testing on her property would not take place at that time; testing on Ms. McClung's property would take place if preliminary testing indicated the potential for contamination. Ms. McClung mentioned the ammunition that had been found in her backyard and handed over to the ANG range control. She again asked if testing for contamination would be conducted on her property.

Mr. Minior introduced himself as the deputy remedial program manager at MMR and stated that Ms. McClung had brought up some interesting points. He said that he was not aware that someone from the 102nd range control had been out to the McClung property. He also noted that the 102nd would be contacted to obtain the information that had been collected from its investigation of the property. Meanwhile, the drainage structure would be sampled and the investigation effort would be expanded, based on the findings at the site. Mr. Minior also stated that any time there was any concern or question regarding findings, more investigation would take place. He noted that Ms. McClung would be informed of the proceedings. He then referred to comments that Ms. McClung had made about the availability of information in 1992 and 1993 and stated that during these years reports on the investigation of the contamination had been made to a group on the base called the Technical Environmental Affairs Committee (TEAC). Reports had been distributed to the public libraries and the board of health in each town; also, the town had been notified of any significant findings. In order to clarify some of the questions regarding when the cleanup of the source area would happen, Mr. Minior stated it would be taken into consideration that in summer the prevailing winds came from the southeast to the northwest, which would move any dust associated with the cleanup of the source area away from the residential neighborhood.

Mr. Drum asked where the drainage swale would be tested in relation to Greenway Road and Snake Pond Road. Mr. Cui stated that testing would be performed 400 feet down the swale.

Ms. Larkin adjourned the public information session at 7:40 PM. A public hearing followed.