Public Information Meeting on
Agenda Item #1. Welcome: Vanessa Musgrave, IRP Community Involvement Manager Ms. Musgrave, Community Involvement Manager for AFCEE/IRP convened the meeting at 7:10 P.M. and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Ms. Musgrave stated that this meeting is important so that AFCEE can receive the public’s comments and concerns on the draft decision criteria document and schedule. Ms. Musgrave also stated that there is a posterboard session across the hall and copies of the document, schedule and the Community Involvement Plan. The Community Involvement Plan is also out for public comment until March 9, 1997. The public comment period for the Decision Criteria runs through March 10, 1997. Ms. Musgrave stated that all comments will be incorporated into the decision making process. Tonight questions will be recorded and responded to and incorporated into a written response to comments. Written comments can also be submitted at this meeting or anytime during the comment period. Comments can also be e-mailed to the MMR website at www.mmr.org/comment.htm. Ms. Musgrave also invited anyone who is not on the site mailing list to sign up. Ms. Musgrave stated that the Air Force, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States Environmental Protection Agency have committed to an ambitious schedule and certain goals, which are: the protection of human health and the environment, and to conduct a open process in which everyone can comment and contribute to the dialogue. This meeting is one of many that will be held. There will be informational meetings, posterboard sessions and hearings to address each of the plumes. Ms. Musgrave also stated that there are several citizen advisory teams that focus on different issues and meet at different times. These meetings are open to the public. Ms. Musgrave also commented that if anyone is interested in joining one of the teams to please contact her office. Agenda Item #2. Review of Agenda: Greg Sobel, Moderator, Consensus Building Institute Mr. Sobel stated he is an environmental mediator and works on environmental disputes around New England. Mr. Sobel stated that tonight he will be the moderator of this meeting. Mr. Sobel then reviewed the agenda and groundrules for this meeting. Mr. Sobel recognized several public officials who were present. They were: Representative Thomas Cahir; Mr. Richard Musiol, District Aide from Senator Murray’s office; Falmouth Selectman Valiela; and Mr. Ciavattieri of the US EPA. Agenda Item #3. Background and Review of the Decision Criteria: Jim Snyder, Remediation Program Manager Mr. Snyder presented a brief summary of the background of the decision criteria. Mr. Snyder stated that it was a cooperative effort by AFCEE, the regulators and contractors. The basis of this criteria is the Superfund Law. There are nine criteria which they have customize for specific areas and plumes. Mr. Snyder stated that the first step is to develop a set of potential alternatives for each plume, balance the pros and cons, and make a community based decision. Mr. Snyder stated that 100% containment is still the goal throughout the process but potential impacts cannot be overlooked. There will be public meetings to facilitate public input into the selection process, a second meeting to assess public input, posterboard sessions and then the establishment of an enforceable schedule. The second step is evaluation of each potential alternative against balancing criteria. This includes modeling for mass capture and balancing any impacts. The last step is evaluation of each potential alternative against acceptance criteria from which a preferred alternative will be identified. These alternatives will be brought before the Joint Process Action Team (JPAT), the Senior Management Board (SMB), the Technical Review and Evaluation Team (TRET) and the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Council (NRDA) for group assessment. The criteria also must comply with state and federal regulations and the Department of Defense (DoD) policies. Mr. Snyder stated that before the decision point is reached, two public meetings will be held in the affected neighborhoods so that the solutions can be presented to the residents. A public meeting will be held to begin the public comment period on potential alternatives for a specific plume. About four weeks later, a second public meeting will be held on the pros and cons of each potential alternative. Written and oral comments will be accepted throughout the eight week comment period and a review. Posterboard sessions, fact sheets, news releases and advertisements will also be conducted to keep the public informed. A written response to comments will be distributed and incorporated into the plan. Mr. Sobel commented that the above presentation is included in the draft decision document. Question and Answer Session: Mr. Sobel stated that the comments and questions are being recorded and there will be written responses to each of the questions in the final document. Mr. David Dow, Cape Cod Group of the Sierra Club suggested that copies of the ARARs (applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements) be readily available to the public. Mr. Dow asked what plume focus groups are. Mr. Snyder replied that they consist of representatives of his staff along with citizen volunteers from the JPAT, usually from the immediate affected area, who are interested in being more involved with a specific plume. Mr. Sobel commented that the JPAT is one of the citizen involvement teams that has been very involved with the design of the clean up and have regular public meetings which are usually held the last Wednesday of each month. Mr. Sobel stated that the plume focus group pays more specific attention to a particular plume. Mr. Snyder stated there is opportunity for people to join the plume focus groups and the JPATs. Mr. King asked what the alternatives would be if they let nature take its course. Mr. Snyder replied that it is the alternative in some areas and they will be looking at that issue. Mr. Sobel commented that when you look at the matrix chart, there is a series of options which includes natural attenuation. Mr. King commented that in one area in the past year the plume has dropped in intensity and in some cases in another year will be below the levels for containment. He stated it seems if some of the plumes are left alone they would disappear. Mr. Snyder again replied that they will assess that. Mr. Snyder also stated that in areas near ponds where 100% containment is not a reasonable goal, an option may still be 95% containment and letting the other 5% go. Mr. King suggested another idea is to model and predict where it will be in a year from now. Mr. Don Palmer from Falmouth stated that one of the decision criteria stated it was enforceable - he asks by whom and with what sanctions. Mr. Snyder replied that enforceable milestones are dates for specific activities in this process. Some of the dates revolve around the pilot tests which were submitted to get the plans designed and submitted to get to a specific construction milestone completed, and get the system turned on. Mr. Snyder stated that these dates are enforceable under US EPA jurisdiction over this program and fines can be imposed if the dates are not met. Ms. Sarah Wood from Falmouth asked if they could give an idea of what kind of input will be used for threshold criteria in the simulation model and how will they determine whether the impacts of the alternatives are acceptable. Mr. Snyder replied that they are looking at what threatened and endangered species are identified in that area, if the plume is going to go to it, or if the construction will impact it. They will be considering alternatives based on the inventories of threatened and endangered species. Ms. Wood asked if the ecological baseline inventory was going on now. Mr. Snyder replied that the understanding of the endangered species habitat on base has been going on for some time and they will be looking at the criteria to see if the alternative has an effect on that habitat. Ms. Wood then asked how they will determine the acceptability and decision point and whether the impacts are acceptable or if it is questionable. Mr. Snyder replied that if in a given alternative there are potential impacts to the habitat, they will look to see if there are mitigating measures that are acceptable and will not destroy or damage the habitat. Mr. Sobel stated that there is a lot of work going on to establish the baseline conditions and there is also a lot of environmental review by the TRET. There is also a monitoring plan being developed to compare impacts with the baseline conditions. Ms. Wood stated that her main concern was that simulation models are fine for some ideas but you need to have actual field information to see if it is valid. Mr. Sobel stated that the baseline information is collected in the field as well as the impact information over time. Mr. Snyder stated that they are also monitoring for impacts to other than threatened and endangered species. He gave the example of monitoring near Snake Pond at Camp Good News for the FS-12 system. Mr. Snyder stated that all the modeling for Snake Pond predicts that the plume is not or is minimally mingling with Snake Pond and most of it is going toward the southeast. They are concerned with the reinjection of clean water near the edge of the plume and the effect on the pond which may alter the pH balance and temperature of the pond. They are monitoring this very closely and considering alternatives. Agenda Item #4. Review of the Schedule: Paul Marchessault, Remedial Project Manager, US EPA Mr. Marchessault discussed the enforceable milestones that are contained in Appendix V of the decision criteria document. Mr. Marchessault stated that back in July of 1996, AFCEE submitted the strategic plan to the US EPA for review as required under an amendment to the Federal Facilities Agreement between the U.S. Air Force and the US EPA. Mr. Marchessault stated that upon submittal of the plan, the US EPA, MassDEP and AFCEE reviewed the schedule and agreed on the enforceable milestones for the upcoming activities. Mr. Marchessault pointed out that the schedule in Appendix V only includes plume response activities and there are various other schedules for source control at other sites throughout the base that are already in place and schedules have been established for those. Mr. Marchessault then reviewed several activities under the enforceable milestones and referred to an overhead of the plumes. Mr. Marchessault stated that both SD-5 and FS-12 are currently under construction. The SD-5 north system startup is scheduled for August 1997. The FS-12 system phase I start up date is scheduled for September 1997. The second date to address contamination at the leading edge will be submitted by March 31, 1997 for review by the regulators. For CS-10, Ashumet Valley, LF-1 and SD-5 South, there are various activities that are occurring such as recirculating well pilot tests and extraction/treatment/reinjection (ETR) projects that are being evaluated. Mr. Marchessault stated that the important date is for the full execution plan when the detailed schedule is given for the chosen alternative and the schedule for completion. Mr. Marchessault stated that in the schedule now is an assumption that they may go to ETR at the latest date possible. Mr. Marchessault also reviewed the schedule for the FS-28 ethylene dibromide (EDB) plume in Hatchville. The report was submitted to the regulators and is currently being reviewed. The full characterization report will be submitted and will evaluate the entire plume. Mr. Marchessault stated that additional work on the CS-4 plume was performed and the draft technical memorandum was submitted and is currently under review by the regulators. Mr. Marchessault stated that there have been no identifiable plumes at Western Aquafarm and Eastern Briarwood so they are currently performing quarterly monitoring, and an annual report will be evaluated by the regulators. Mr. Marchessault stated that if there is any deviation or contaminants above drinking water standards, any of the agencies have the right to halt the monitoring and require additional investigation. Mr. Marchessault stated that the last item on the enforceable schedule is the inorganic investigation and the basic purpose of this is to evaluate the inorganics or metals at the various plumes, the potential of any impact to the treatment systems, and is also used in developing ecological risk assessments. The submittal date for this was January 31, 1997 and was met. Mr. Marchessault stated that in closing, the US EPA wants to hear from the public in terms of the enforceable schedule and the decision criteria. The public will be kept informed through the SMB and JPAT meetings. Upon the end of the comment period, they will evaluate all comments and a formal amendment to the Federal Facilities Agreement will be made and will incorporate any proposed changes. Question and Answer Session: Ms. Singer of Falmouth asked who comments are mailed to. Mr. Marchessault replied that comments should be mailed to Mr. Snyder at the IRP office. The address will be provided after this meeting. Ms. Singer also asked if the comments by the regulatory agencies are available for the public to review. Mr. Marchessault replied that copies are available and can be requested as well as any comments that they receive. There will also be a response to comments in the final document. Mr. Pinaud of the MassDEP requested that people "cc" their comments to the Commonwealth and he will provide his address after the meeting. He also stated that they will be happy to add people to their mailing list. Mr. Rolbein asked why the other plumes that are on the MMR are not being discussed in this schedule such as CS-4 and the phosphate plume. Mr. Marchessault stated that CS-4 is on the schedule and the report was just submitted. Mr. Rolbein asked if FS-28 is also on the schedule. Mr. Snyder replied it is. Mr. Rolbein asked about the phosphorus plume. Mr. Marchessault replied that a portion of the plume is included within the Ashumet Valley plume. Mr. Rolbein asked if a treatment plan will include the phosphorus as well as the other materials in that plume. Mr. Snyder replied they are looking at the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the Ashumet Valley Plume and the phosphorus will be handled under a different program as it is not part of the Superfund program. It will be investigated by the Air National Guard and is in the feasibility study phase right now. Agenda Item #5. Remarks by US EPA and MA DEP: Mr. Pinaud stated that MassDEP and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) have worked with the US EPA and the Air Force to develop this document and they are pleased with the outcome. He stated that public comment is a critical component to make this document a useful tool for everyone. Mr. Pinaud stated that the intent of this program is to develop and choose an environmentally sound and publicly acceptable remedy for cleanup of each of the plumes. Mr. Pinaud stated that the schedule is significant in that it includes late finish/date certain dates for system startup for each of the plumes and incorporates a comprehensive plume management strategy. A lot of data gets fed into each of the decision points for each of the plumes and this decision document pulls all the information together to allow them to compare the alternatives. In addition, Mr. Pinaud stated that the Commonwealth will remain diligent to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and that the focus is on a speedy cleanup. Agenda Item #6. Question and Answer Session with Panel Members: Jim Snyder, AFCEE Mr. David Dow asked if, in the document under the effectiveness and permanence criteria, they discussed the fact that they were going to lift the percent of mass of the different contaminants that are going to be contained by the different technologies. He stated it is not clear to him if they know what the mass is in the plumes if they are in liquid phase ( see page I-1). Mr. Snyder replied that the models can estimate particle migration and the mass contaminants. Mr. Dow stated it is his understanding that in a ETR system it has been found that the groundwater get re-contaminated from the other phases and the concentrations go up again. He said if they do a mass balance in the model, they may find that there are more contaminants in the water. Mr. Snyder replied that a typical operating scenario shows that there are few contaminants and they go back to a steady state. Mr. Marchessault stated that if Mr. Dow looks at criteria II-1, where they distinguish how much of the plume they capture and how much of the mass they capture, they may capture 95% of the plume and, because the concentrations are very low on the outside edges, they may capture more of the mass. Mr. Stone of Falmouth asked for an estimate on how long the SD-5 and FS-12 containment systems will run to remove a significant amount of contaminants. Mr. Snyder replied twenty years. They are required to re-assess and re-evaluate the system every five years. Mr. York of Cataumet asked if there is no solution that meets all of the threshold criteria and at what point do they do nothing or pick the "least of the evil". Mr. Snyder replied they have discussed that scenario and they would look at the ones that have a difficult time passing some criteria and see if there is some way they could mitigate the impact. Mr. York also asked if anyone believes if the LF-1 may or may not already be entering Buzzards Bay and, if a treatment system is installed right at the Bay, would it get 100% containment, or back it up two miles inland (which would be more desirable for ecological reasons) would it still meet the threshold criteria. He suggested that they look at the different views of putting it back from the bay and people will say there are contaminants and the toe is already at the bay and other people may say if you put it right at the bay you are going to affect the water table and outflows that are essential to the estuary ecology and that will not meet threshold criteria. Mr. Snyder replied that they are evaluating both of those scenarios. Mr. York also asked if the ecological monitoring is in place for the LF-1 plume. Mr. Snyder replied that they are submitting the baseline monitoring plan for LF-1 next month. Mr. York asked when they will be collecting baseline data. Mr. Snyder replied it will start right after the plan is finalized. Mr. York asked if there will be baseline data pre-mediation, before the data is collected to base their decisions on before 1998. Mr. Snyder replied that the baseline data does not affect the decision until it is turned on. Mr. York asked when they will have baseline data for the LF-1 plume. Mr. Snyder replied mid 1998 to 1999 - for a full year of baseline data. Mr. York stated it is important to keep in mind that they will not have baseline data until 1999. Mr. Snyder replied that as an example, they started baseline data for FS-12 last June so that they would have a full year of data when the system started up. He stated that the intent is to understand the baseline conditions so that the remediation does not have any adverse affect. Mr. York also asked if apart from monitoring the effects of a system, when do they plan to monitor the effects of the plume if it is already entering the bay. Mr. Snyder replied that they have been monitoring that and the results are nil. Mr. York stated that it is premature to make that statement if no one has been out at the site. He suggests that they need to look at that situation independent of whatever they do to remediate the plume. Mr. Badrul Hoda of the AFCEE/IRP Office replied that the ecological monitoring program is designed to assess what the ecological affect of the possible contamination may be and that it is evaluated before the remediation is put in place. Mr. Hoda stated that the end of March to early April, they will be assessing Red Brook Harbor and, they will continue meetings with the Barnstable County Science Advisory Panel. Ms. Amaral of East Falmouth asked about the human health risk and ecological risks in plume capture and asked them to explain the baseline risk assessment. Mr. Snyder replied that they will be looking at the risk assessment and evaluating it. Ms. Amaral asked if the risk assessment pertains to humans or ecological risks. Mr. Snyder replied it pertains to human health, carcinogenic, non-carcinogenic risks and ecological risks. Ms. Amaral asked what is the ecological risk. Mr. Snyder replied it is risk to ecological receptors such as birds and fish. Ms. Amaral asked if they were talking about destroying habitat or destroying the food that animals may eat or destroying the living tissue of the animal. Mr. Snyder replied they look at the human health risk assessment assuming that a species, plant or animal ingests a plant that contains a contaminant that follows the pathway and what the ecological effect will be on any ecological receptors in that path. Mr. Locke of Cataumet asked where the funding is going to come from to keep these systems operating for the next twenty years and if it is guaranteed. Mr. Snyder replied that the government has obligations to keep these systems running and it will be included in budgets in the coming years. Mr. Snyder stated that it is all part of the budgeting plan and process. Ms. Alferes of Hatchville asked if there was a schedule to test Round Pond and the analysis of the flow of water in and out of Round Pond. Mr. Karson replied that the testing of Round Pond has been initiated. Mr. Szymoniak of Jacobs Engineering replied that last week a plan was submitted to regulatory agencies to do another round of sampling which should occur in March, 1997. Mr. Dow of East Falmouth asked if they were going to include containing the nitrates as well as the VOCs in the design for the Ashumet Valley Plume. Mr. Snyder replied that they will contain the VOCs and if there are nitrates exceeding levels it will be dealt with. Mr. Dow asked if they would put the extraction fence out ahead of the VOCs. Mr. Snyder replied it is not the current plan. Mr. Dow also asked if they put in a well fence at the CS-10 source area would there be any impact on the pump and treat system. Mr. Snyder replied that as with all the plumes, they are trying to find an effective way of dealing with the source areas. CS-10 is under a feasibility study right now. Mr. Dow asked if they put in a well fence, do they take into account the groundwater flow when they design a system to contain the leading edge of CS-10? Mr. Snyder replied they will evaluate the hydrologic interference. Mr. Marchessault stated there are some identified sources at CS-10 and many of them have already been removed under the Drainage Structure Removal Program. There is also a draft feasibility study to address the remaining source areas. Mr. Taylor of Falmouth asked if individual property owners could stop the remedial action. Mr. Snyder replied that they can have an impact, on a given alternative as far as access issues. The IRP program tries to look for municipal and government land as much as possible. Mr. Sobel asked what if a property owner refuses access. Mr. Snyder replied that they would try to find another solution and only in a dire case would they take the property. Mr. White of the Pinecrest area in Falmouth asked if there was previous experience from other sites that can be used here such as the recirculation wells and if a property owner denies access on his land, could they still get the information they need from another location. Mr. Snyder replied in a standard pump and treat system he does not see an impediment if the plans need to be modified a little to work with a property owner. Mr. White asked if there are other people they can talk to around the country who have been through a similar situation and what experience the program leaders have. Mr. Snyder replied that AFCEE, the US EPA, the TRET and the contractors bring a multitude of experience to this program. Mr. Snyder also stated that they will try to locate people who have been through similar experiences. Mr. Sobel suggested that the website may be a way of locating other citizen groups. Mr. Sobel also asked why they are using pilot tests for the recirculating wells and what they are learning. Mr. Snyder replied they will learn about the range, effectiveness and depth of the plumes and it will be a phased approach to see if it will or will not operate. Ms. Grenier of North Falmouth stated that the first thing they need to address is whether or not the plumes will affect them and what do they really need to be afraid of. She stated they need to clean up the plumes and she has read about Woburn and the people were only affected if they had well water for drinking and bathing. She stated that if the plumes are very deep and not hurting anyone, they need to be dealt with, but deal with the people with wells first. Mr. Snyder replied that they are evaluating 100% containment or the alternative in the decision criteria and what the impact would be to the drinking water supply. He stated they are sampling water in Briarwood, and the Long Range Water Supply PAT is monitoring the Upper Cape water supply and there is a lot of control in place. Mr. Sobel commented that the criteria looks at human health and ecological risks. Ms. McCallups asked about the date for the cleanup of the plumes. Mr. Snyder replied there is a 1999 system start up date and then there are years of operation before it is cleaned up. Ms. McCallups asked why it would take so long. Mr. Snyder replied that there is a process of design, plans, decision points and construction. Ms. McCallups asked how much the plume spreads in two years. Mr. Snyder replied that groundwater flows at a rate of two feet per day and some particles are absorbed in the ground and the modeling has accounted for this. Ms. McCallups asked if there are alternatives for getting water to the Upper Cape if the plan doesn’t work. Mr. Snyder replied they will find a solution to contain the plumes and the Long Range Water Supply PAT is involved in a Regional Water Supply Study right now with MassDEP and US EPA to look at water projections and shortfalls. Mr. Snyder stated there are also impacts due to growth which are also being taking this into consideration. Mr. Sobel explained that the LRWS is a citizen team that meets regularly and includes citizens, water officials from each of the towns, and regulators. Ms. McCallups asked if they are going to contain the contamination in two years and the clean up will take twenty years. Mr. Snyder replied that in two years they will have stopped it from migrating anymore. Ms. McCallups then asked about property values and stated that in some areas they have gone down 20%. Mr. Sobel asked that they hold that question to see if there are any more on the decision criteria and matrix. Ms. Grenier of West Falmouth asked who makes the final decision. Mr. Snyder replied he is Remedial Project Manager and that the Air Force is the lead agency in the program and is responsible for the clean up so ultimately, the Air Force would make the decision. He stated they are trying to respond to the community. Ms. Grenier stated her concern is that someone would eventually make a decision. Mr. Snyder replied a decision will be made and a solution will be put in place. Ms. Alferes asked if the flow of water in and out of Round Pond would also be addressed. Mr. Snyder replied that they will be addressing the flow issue and the surrounding rivers. Agenda Item #7. End of Decision criteria meeting: Staff will be available to answer other questions. Mr. Sobel stated that the Remedial Project Managers and other staff will be available in the cafeteria to answer any questions or concerns. He then thanked everyone for their cooperation and input. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. One-to-one discussions continued in the poster session until about 9:30 P.M.
|
