MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY
RESERVATION INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC MEETING June 18, 1996 P R O C E E D I N G S For those of you who are interested in the location, the time is on the press release that are sitting on the table outside. There's going to be a meeting at Bourne High School and also there will be a meeting at the Base Theater on -- excuse me, Camp Edwards. The purpose of tonight's hearing is to accept all comments, oral testimony and written comments on the Strategic Plan. All oral comments and testimony that are given hereon will be transcribed verbatim and addressed at future editions of the Strategic Plan. The verbatim testimony will become part of the official record on this project, the Installation Restoration Program. This hearing is different from the informational meeting held earlier this evening, the first half of this meeting. Responses will not be provided to your comments during the hearing but we may ask for clarification. I would like to ask any of you who would care to make these comments to please stand if possible and if you'd state your name slowly and clearly and spell out your last name if it's one that's easy to mispronounce or misspell for the benefit of the court reporters. It is now time to open the official record for all comments on the Strategic Plan. The floor is open for your comments. HERB LUTHER: My name is Herb Luther, I live in Teaticket. I guess my comment is influenced by something I saw in the news tonight with the head of the Federal Aviation Administration making a comment about the Valuejet investigation. And he said that his agency did four years of work in four weeks. And there's a whole confidence question about safety and so on that comes up about aviation travel. And we're not talking about aviation travel, we're talking about plumes. But they're travelling too. About four years ago I went to many, many, many hearings, some of them right here in this room. And, oh, a few things have happened and that's pretty good. There's a new team here. There's a few faces that are familiar, discouragingly not too many. I'm disappointed to hear that Jim here has come in here as permanent stage of change of station. I would hope it would be temporary and you'd be done in four months. I guess to be to the point about the Strategic Plan directly, I'm frustrated. I feel like I've seen most of this before. I would challenge the team making the plans to look at any dates that say 1997, 1998 and ask, "Why can't that say 1996?" Why can't you do four years worth of stuff in four months? Federal Aviation Administration did it but it took an airplane crash. So, my first input is the schedule seems to me to be quite strung out. I understand the technical complexities and unresolved questions. I don't think there's any lack of public input that the simple goal doesn't take a hundred pages and that's to stop the progress of the plumes and to clean them up as soon as possible. Pretty, clear? Thank you. DAVE KULIS: My name is Dave Kulis, K-U-L-I-S and I'm a member of the Ashumet Valley Property Owners Environmental Committee and a few years ago we were awarded a technical assistant grant by the EPA to study a few concerns that we had as a neighborhood about some of the issues of the Mass. Military Reservation. And one of those issues was the intrusion of phosphorus from the Ashumet Valley Plume into Ashumet Pond. And it has been addressed by two independent researchers, P.C. Gordon and K.P. Associates that without abbreviation Ashumet Pond will enter a eutrophic state from its current musatrophic (sic) state without mediation of this plume and that was validated. Those data that is validated by our technical assistance advisor and but yet in this, to us, a very important concern. And in the information, the Strategic Plan, there is no mention of this issue except for one line which says that the phosphorus plume is under review by the 102nd Fighter Wing Environmental Management Office and we think it's an important concern and one that we would like to have incorporated into the Strategic Plan. My second question is in regard to the comments -- revisions to the draft MMRP Strategic Plan and there are several comments on the last page which I believe I wrote to the TRAC coordinators and these are, unfortunately, taken out of context and really without any ancillary information which make these comments, I think, important. So, I would just like to voice my concern about that. I would like to be able to try and rectify this at some future point in time. Thanks. SUSAN NICKERSON: Susan Nickerson, Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod. As I look at this schedule for each of the plumes and the design work and the field investigations, it's clear that whereas a year ago we thought we could have wells in the ground, the end of this year and next year to actually contain the plumes. That we're now looking at another two to four years depending on the plume to even decide to what's going to be done with that plume. And in that time, the plumes will advance, perhaps another quarter of a mile over four years. And it's very disturbing and distressing to see that we really are no closer to stopping these plumes as we've ever been with the possible exception of FS-12 and the northern section of SE-5. The plan has got to contain some dates for remedial action, for actual pieces of the containment treatment systems to be in ground and operable. I'm extremely worried about the water supply situation and how much longer the towns, particularly around the base, can tolerate the presence of these plumes in the community without being totally up against the wall with their water supply. At the moment putting a treatment system on Coonamesset Pond is an interim action for the Coonamesset Well. It is not a very hopeful situation and I just feel that the final plan has got to have some dates and some strong commitment by the Department of Defense for perhaps some kind of series of decision points so that the community can know how you're going to stop these plumes. And I know that there's a tremendous amount of complex work that goes into that answer but it's just not acceptable to be left in limbo and we are in limbo right now. VIRGINIA VALIELA: Virginia Valiela V-A-L-I-E-L-A and I'm chairman of the Board of Selectmen and a member of the Senior Management Board. I have five general comments and then some specific comments. My first general comment is that I think that the Strategic Plan is on the right track for remediation and for addressing the contamination of the base. Not to say that there aren't a lot of serious issues that still have to be dealt with. I think that on the whole it is a balanced -- it's a response balancing the need for cleanup with care and not damaging the eco-system. There is a problem of competing goals in getting this cleanup accomplished. And that is how to protect the environment and to know enough about what you're doing when you're putting your cleanup system and at the same time respond to the community's frustration and sense of finally getting this problem solved and that for doing it quickly which is the sort of thing that was expressed around here this evening. There's a major change in this Strategic Plan from the original plan that we looked at which was just to do containment on everything and to believe that we know enough to accomplish that. We know now that we did not know enough to just go out and contain all the plumes. That it is going to be very hard to be patient to get enough information so that we can contain them and clean them up in a way that is acceptable. The process of fine tuning this plan by having these meetings and the joint paths has produced an enormous amount of paperwork but I think it works. I think that each meeting that I attend, I hear good ideas and as I see the revisions on a weekly basis. I think that we are getting closer to a good plan. That's my first point. My second is that I have attended meetings by the technical review and environment people called the TRET and the Science Advisory Panel set up by the assembly called the SAP and what I hear out of both of those teams which are made up of very experienced ecologists, hydrologists, chemists, ecological environmental Ph.D of all sorts is their concern about not getting enough information and making decisions too soon. It gets back to this really, there's a serious problem out there of competing goals. What is also not clear is as we gather the information, the environment, the ecological monitoring, the baseline data or whatever you want to use, what's not clear yet is how that information is going to be evaluated in a timely fashion and who is going to do the evaluation and more importantly, as we reach decision points, who is going to make those decisions. And we'll be developing what will be coming out of the field is very technical information that will need to be processed needs to be communicated to the community and we may reach points where it's more like a fork in the road in terms of we will have to chose about not fully treating a plume over by having to put a fence of wells farther up stream as you see, for instance, in SD-5. So I think that the development of information for the plumes that are not going to be contained in this plan, that whole process of reaching an answer on each of those other plumes, is going to be a difficult task. And I think that we need to think about how we're going to get down that path. I believe we will need the TRET and we will need to join paths. There's been some discussion about the TRET what may be done and like I say, I think definitely it's not. My third point is that this latest revision includes an introduction for Attachment 9 which addresses the original proposed plans also called the Succeed ? Design. And there were two pages, I think they're extremely well written. I think they say in plain language what the Air Force intends to do, how concerned it is, how it's going to act and that it is taking into consideration the input it's received so far about having a balanced response. I think you ought to move it up and put it in the executive summary. Maintaining the balance is, as I said, I think a challenge. I think it will require an active process. I am aware of dozens of meetings but I'm not aware of any time when all these folks get together besides the Advisory Panel with the TRET with the J Panel with the Senior Management Board. I think periodically we may need a day-long forum, sort of like a round table where all of these people talk to each other. And I think that that need will surface when it becomes obvious that we're going to have to make a choice that the conflicting goals have reached a decision and we're going to have to respond one way or the other. My fourth point is that this latest revision for Attachment 9 also proposes a new group called a TAG, Technical Advisory Group, which is to advise the senior management board but also advise the J PAC and the TRET in the general process. I want to say that the senior management, myself in particular, and my sense from the other selectmen is that we value the TRET very highly, both as individuals and as a collective organization. We think they have an enormous amount of expertise and that they have national reputations so that I don't think it makes sense to have another group that would replace them. I think, if anything, we need to enhance the TRET. This is not to say that the Senior Management Board doesn't individually need some technical advisors but I think we need to talk about this at a meeting. In the latest revision it's proposed to be created. My last general point has to do with Risk Assessment, that which is plain language is how do we assure our citizens that they're safe, that it is okay to live here, that it's okay to drink the water and swim in the ponds? And we really need a Risk Assessment 101 something very straight and clear that shows that the people understand so that if they're not exposed to either contamination, then there is no risk and they are okay. My specific points have to do with, first the Ashumet Valley Plume. It's proposed to have a pilot test of extraction/treatment and re-injectcment (sic) at the toe. I know that the toe is down in an area where there are a lot of wetlands and bogs and ponds and so I heard earlier that the exact location has not been selected. The words were, we need to find the ideal location. I think that won't be very hard to do and still be at the toe. I have also seen on some maps where the head of the Ashumet Valley does not appear to go all the way back to the sewage treatment plant and the fire training area and I'm a little puzzled by that. I need an explanation for that. There's no information whether recirculating wells are to be put and I think that also in the Ashumet Valley, as a pilot test, and I think we need information on that, ideally, before this plan is finalized. And if we're not going to know that, it's hard to comment on something you don't know about, where it's going to be. If we're not going to know before July 15, then we need some sense of how that process of decision will be made so that everybody's fully informed. My last comment on the Ashumet Valley Plume is that I'm still concerned about the nitrates and the phosphorus was mentioned earlier. But this plume also has nitrates from the sewage treatment plant and that remains a concern in terms of salt water impacts when the plume finally exits. My other two specific comments are, first, I continue to be
concerned about monitoring the groundwater in the impact area because that is the top of
the aquifer and I think we need to pursue a way to accomplish that. And lastly, and most
importantly, we need to continue to develop alternate water supplies. From the discussions
I've had with the water districts and our water department, we feel that there are
additional supplies on the base and we would like somehow to have that developed and
available to the communities. Falmouth in particular has lost an enormous amount of real
estate because of the presence of the plumes. And we need to have that area -- we need to
have the area, that that represented in terms of water supply, restored. Thank you, very
much. DAVID DOW: Hey, I'm David Dow. Other people have commented on the short-term plan and I just wanted to say a few words about the long-term endeavor. When we were approached by the plan, the people told us there was going to be an interim action to actually contain the plumes and prevent more ground water from being polluted. We've already lost 55 or 60 billion gallons of our groundwater and to me we need mediation, means that you're actually going to clean up areas that are polluted not only as source areas but also the areas of groundwater that have been polluted. And I have yet to hear a plan for what we're going to do on the long-term and it seemed to me that you need to have some idea what you're going to do in the long-term so that you don't forego an of your options by short-term actions. So that in addressing things on the long-term, you obviously have to consider, as Virginia mentioned, the long-range water supply problem. You have to address whether it's actually possible for the 50 or 60 billions of groundwater that's been polluted to treat that to a level where it can actually be used at some time in the future as a source of drinking water. If not, which seems to be the case from what I've read about the fact that you can't pump and treat groundwater down to safe drinking water levels for things like volved ? organic carbons or TCE's or the B techs contaminants. So, if that's indeed the case, then it becomes even more essential that the long-range water supply problem is addressed. Also, the focus has been on human health impacts specifically what when they do the risk assessments what the potential for getting cancer would be. But there are a lot of other health affects that occur probably at lower levels that need to be addressed. In addition, you need to consider what the ecological impacts, which, until they had recent exhaustive effort, had not been addressed at all. So it seems to me in the long run each time you need to address that issue as well. And also as people mentioned, you need to address in the long-range plan, what you're going to do about the nutrient inputs to Ashumet Pond from phosphorus and also from coastal saltwater ponds like ? Green Pond from nitrogen and the Ashumet Valley Plume so that it seems to me unless you get some kind of general goal for the long-range, that you can't tell how to get from where we are to the short-term contaminant to the long-term solution of remediation. So I would like to see at some point, hopefully by July 15th, where you give us a long-range vision of where we're going so we can see whether the road we're pursuing is getting us from where we are to where we want to be in the future. Thank you. RICHARD HUGUS: My name is Richard Hugus, I have a few comments. First of all, the -- one of the main faults I see in this Strategic Plan that the Air Force has put out is that it lacks a comprehensive view of this whole problem. Of the entire Sagamore lands, of the aquifer, under the upper Cape has been contaminated by this base, not the entire land but a good portion of it. And I think everybody's in agreement that that contamination needs to be termed and mitigated and cleaned up. There's been some mention of the fact that there are competing interests out there but I think everybody agrees on the importance of that one concern. After that, it gets down to specifics. The Strategic Plan shows good faith on the Air Force's part. The jury is still out on the question of whether the Air Force is going to give us a better show than the National Guard did for the past few years. I hope so. But when you look at the meat and potatoes issue, it seems that the Air Force is just looking at one thing incrementally and doesn't have a comprehensive picture and it puts off actual cleanup actions further than what have been the case if we had followed the original circular process, the EPA circular process that we started with when I first got involved with this about five years ago. For instance, the first draft of this Strategic Plan said that wall head treatment for -- excuse me, that Coonamesset, the EDB plume around the Coonamesset Pond wall wouldn't be completely studied for two and a half years. Which I understand there's a change but that's an example of how much the plan is giving us more delay rather than the action we've been hoping for. People have talked about the long-range water supply question. That's another area that needs to be looked at comprehensively by the Air Force and what specific guarantees of what it's going to contribute to that effort. One of the things I would like to suggest is that the impact area which is at the top of the aquifer, which is the army is firing artillery into every day be closed down. It's at the top of the aquifer, contamination has been found under it at sites CS-19 and I think we need to change our thinking about what this particular training is doing to the environment. In fact, it's incredible that we've looked at so much of the damage that's been done by this base and we're not worried about things that are continuing to go on. RDX is a component of the explosives that were fired into the impact area and it's been found in groundwater. It's a probable carcinogen and it needs to be investigated. The state believes there's a plume under the impact area caused by this RDX which is short for Royal Dutch Explosive. So, yes, let's look at this long-range water supply and take some action to show that you're concerned about protecting the long-range water supply that will be coming from that area of the Upper Cape. To need and around the impact area, let's stop the shelling up there and investigate that area. The Strategic Plan has neglected to mention site FS-1 fuel spill, the one where up to six million gallons of aviation fuel were purposely dumped during Air Force activity up until the 70s, mid 70s. The cleanup program people at the base said that there was a plume from FS-1 and yet there's no mention of that on the document about your plans to investigate further. The cause of one of the worse plumes at the base is the BOMARC missile site which itself needs attention. Inside it's got lots of rusty, dilapidated buildings which are, you know, a sign of how neglected the place is. The soils there are, no doubt, polluted and the building ought to be torn down so that the entire place can be investigated. I think the Plan should reflect specific, more immediate cleanup action for three plumes, the Ashumet Valley, LF-1 and CS-10. We have enough information I should think by now to get into real cleanup effort rather than more study at those three plumes. And I would suggest that intensive modeling being done for FS-12 in Sandwich right now, be applied to those three plumes. I would like to, finally, just agree with what the last comment about long-term actions in terms of cleaning up this entire mess. Again, it has to do with picking a comprehensive look at this problem. And cleanup methods in the short term should contribute to long-term cleanup methods. And it's not that difficult to do, for instance, the planning for FS-12 shows treatment pumps going up to access the plumes that will mitigate the plumes so that the job of treating them at the toe isn't difficult. That can be done elsewhere. And thanks for the opportunity to comment. DOUG LEAFFER: Doug Leaffer, L-E-A-F-F-E-R, from Leggette, Brashears and Graham. The draft plume area map that was distributed tonight was dated March 1996 and it depicts the extent of the plumes, assumedly there on that date or before it from data compiled up to that time. I think the plan should incorporate the model which shows just how far down gradient the plumes SD-5 North and FS-12 are expected to migrate during the fall of 1997, which I see here is the system start-up date for the proposed ETR systems, for those two plumes that would enable the property owners and other concerned parties who live in the vicinity of those two plumes, SD-5 North and FS-12 to visualize a worse case scenario so to speak, of plume migration down gradient up until the date of proposed system start up, which again, is the fall of 1997. The other question that I have is in regards to the reactive wall pilot tests. It appears that that technology is largely a bit of a mystery to consultants and engineers alike. And I'm wondering if there was a plan to conduct a lab scale or a bench scale test prior to conducting a field pilot test to determine what the ultimate disposition of the reactive wall media, the iron filings will be, and whether or not the iron filings are themselves considered a hazardous waste once used in the reaction and then spent. BRUCE ROY: Are there any other public statements? [No response] If there are no further oral comments to be made, then we will now close the official record for all testimony. The record is now closed for all testimony. Please note that you can still provide written comments until June 28th and oral testimony at the two remaining public hearings. I would like to thank everybody for coming out. Have a good night. WHEREBY THE PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 9:00 P.M. C E R T I F I C A T E In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this 14th, day of January, 1997. ______________________________________ Kathleen Ann Pallatroni, Notary Public My Commission expires: August 10, 2001 PLEASE NOTE: THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE SAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL AND/OR DIRECTION OF THE CERTIFYING REPORTER.
|
