Working Meeting on the
Goals of Meeting, Groundrules, and Agenda Review Mr. McGlennon convened the meeting at 6:00 P.M. He asked the attendees to use the microphones and to identify themselves when speaking. He briefly reviewed the agenda and explained the groundrules of the meeting, saying that there would be time allotted for questions and comments following each agenda item. What are the Remedial Actions and Investigations Currently Taking Place at Fuel Spill-1 (FS-1) and FS-28? Mr. Karson of the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) introduced Mr. Szymoniak of Jacobs Engineering. He described the location of FS-28 and reported that 70 monitoring wells had been installed in association with FS-28 between 1996 and 1997. He also stated that the highest concentration of ethylene dibromide (EDB) detected in those wells was 16 parts per billion (ppb). Mr. Karson reported that the Southwest Operable Unit (SWOU) consisted of a vast amount of acreage. He stated that the fieldwork at the SWOU would provide information on the extent of the contamination and would include the installation of 60 monitoring wells. He then stated that water and sediment testing would also be conducted on several ponds and rivers. Mr. Karson stated that sentry wells had been installed north of the Coonamessett supply wells. He stated that the sentry wells that were installed were about 400 feet north of the water supply well and that although EDB had been detected in a sentry well, it had not been detected in the actual supply well. Mr. Karson then stated that extraction well 1 (ew-1) had been in operation since September 1997 and that 80% of the plume was expected to be captured at this point. Mr. Karson also stated that due to the operation of the extraction wells, there were low levels of dissolved oxygen in the water which maybe harmful to some fish. He mentioned that there had been a breakthrough of EDB in one of the carbon canisters. Mr. Karson stated that EDB concentrations in the surface water appeared to be lowered when the cranberry bogs were flooded as the water used to flood the bogs prevented the EDB from surfacing. Mr. Karson reviewed the situation at FS-1. He stated that FS-1 discharged into the Quashnet River. He also said that the highest surface water detection of EDB was 1.43 ppb and that 15 monitoring wells were scheduled to be installed to ascertain the groundwater quality to the south of this area. Questions and Comments Ms. Valiela, a Falmouth Selectman, referred to river and surface water sampling and asked Mr. Karson how far along the plume EDB had been detected. Mr. Karson replied that the EDB had been detected as far down as route 28. Ms. Valiela asked how often samples were being taken along the river and what the results were of those samples. Mr. Karson replied that the surface water sampling to which he had referred was from October and that sampling was being done on a quarterly basis. Ms. Valiela asked how long it would take for EDB to exit by route 28. Mr. Szymoniak replied that he did not have the pump test results with him but that there was a fairly rapid upwelling. Ms. Valiela asked if the surface water was measured to determine how fast it was moving. Mr. Szymoniak replied that nine locations had been measured last year. Mr. Lefleur, of Cape Cod Cranberry Growers Association (CCCGA), asked Mr. Szymoniak if he had any indication of the location of the second lobe. Mr. Szymoniak replied that wells were being monitored and that sampling was being done but that the geology was different, which may explain the slow down. Mr. Lefleur asked if it was probable that it would surface. Mr. Szymoniak replied that he did not know but that the model indicated that it would. Mr. Sharp of the Mashpee Conservation Commission, asked where FS-1 entered the Quashnet River and what the dimensions were at that point. Mr. Karson pointed out where FS-1 entered the Quashnet River and stated that it was less than 1000 feet wide. Mr. Karson then referred to slide of the FS-1 ground water results from the Fall of 1997 and said that it was approximately 100 feet thick. Ms. Caffyn, a Mashpee selectman, asked Mr. Karson if air samples were taken at FS-1. Mr. Karson replied that there were none taken for FS-1. Ms. Caffyn asked Mr. Karson about the status of fish studies. Mr. Karson replied that a fish study was being funded by the Air Force but it was not directly related to the investigation of groundwater and surface water quality. Ms. Caffyn asked if there were plans for air sampling to be done at FS-1. Mr. Karson acknowledged the importance of the issue and stated that it would be done if deemed appropriate. What are the Public Health Concerns at FS-1 and FS-28? Ms. Krueger, of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MA DPH), sitting in for Suzanne Condon, stated that the primary concern at both FS-1 and FS-28 was that EDB was a potent carcinogen. She stated that the exposure pathways were the concern and that EDB has been detected in the cranberries, drinking water, and the air and had also effected fish and wildlife. Ms. Krueger stated that when the problem first presented itself in October 1996 the federal agencies and Ocean Spray had been contacted immediately to discuss the marketing issues. The Food and Drug inspectors tested the cranberries that were voluntarily chosen not to be entered into sale. Ms. Krueger also said that there were a number of public health issues in terms of public exposure. Subsequently, the MA DPH had met with each of the agencies to address some of the plume safety issues in an attempt to work out a plan that would allow for a safe harvest. However, that plan had not succeeded. She added that there had been more testing in August at the Coonamessett River bog and the Quashnet River bog and that trace levels of EDB had been detected. Ms. Krueger stated that there were some technical lab issues and that an interagency group would be involved. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the DPH were sponsoring an effort to get people together to resolve the technical questions that were being raised as well as to develop a protocol for collecting and testing the berries. She added that the biggest concern was to ensure safety for public consumption. Ms. Krueger stated that there had been many questions about the exposure to the air. She said that while the DPH did not think there was a health risk at this time, more air monitoring would be recommended. She also stated that there should be some follow-up testing on the fish studies. Ms. Krueger then added that shellfish had also been sampled and were proven to be non-detect. Question and Comments Mr. Sherman, of the Mashpee Conservation Association, pointed out that many pedestrians spent time along the Quashnet bog and stressed the importance of air sampling. Ms. Krueger stated that a meeting was scheduled for February 9, 1998 to develop a protocol for sampling for EDB. Col. Selstrom agreed that a protocol was needed and asked when the protocol could be expected to be in place. Ms. Krueger replied that it may take more than one meeting to determine the actual protocol but that she hoped to have it sooner than later. Mr. Healy, of the Department of Food and Agriculture, stated that risk assessment was often discussed but did not help with economic concerns. He then said that there had to be zero detect levels and that the cranberries would not be marketable with even a trace of EDB. Ms. Caffyn stated that EDB should be non-detect in the water and the soil in which the cranberries were grown. Ms. Valiela noted that Ocean Spray had stated that clean berries harvested from contaminated water were not acceptable. She emphasized the importance of the protocol and asked when it would be in place. Ms. Krueger replied that the protocol would be in place as soon as possible. Mr. Sharp asked how long it would be before the Quashnet River bogs could expect a marketable crop. Mr. Healy replied that that would not be until at least a year of non-detect results. Mr. Sharp asked how long the bogs had to be maintained before they could think about a marketable crop. Mr. Lefleur replied that it was dependent on the clean-up process. Mr. Healy stressed the commitment to "keep holding people’s feet in the fire" to ensure reimbursement. Mr. Healy concluded that the question was unanswerable at this time. What are the Ecological Concerns at FS-1 and FS-28? (see attachment #3 which contains all slides included in presentation) Mr. Hurley of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife introduced himself and Mr. Reback from the Division of Marine Fisheries. Mr. Hurley stated that the wild brook trout had greatly reduced in abundance over the years. He explained that southeastern Massachusetts had experienced almost 400 years of development which had resulted in impacts to the natural environment of the fish. He reported that the trout needed high quality, cold water with a high oxygen level in order to prosper. He explained that the trout were a sentinel species which sought to spawn their eggs in a location were groundwater was coming up in the stream. The spawning typically occurred in the fall and the eggs incubated in the gravel over the winter season. Mr. Hurley next referred to the river herring. He explained that the river herring lived predominantly in salt water but spawned in freshwater ponds and rivers. He said that the river herring sought strong currents when determining where to spawn. Mr. Hurley went on to explain the connection between the fisheries resource and FS-1 at the Quashnet River and FS-28 at the Coonamessett River. He said that the Quashnet River was a wild brook trout spawning area as well as a habitat for herring and rare species such as the spotted turtle. At the Coonamessett River, there was a certified vernal pool near the FS-28 treatment well, among other concerns. He then mentioned that there was some potential for the Coonamessett River to restore the wild brook trout. Mr. Hurley next mentioned the impact of cranberry bogs on fisheries. The main concern was the conversion of a natural river into a main bog ditch. The chemicals from the bogs were also concern. Mr. Hurley added that the impacts from the bog operation were also taken into account. Mr. Hurley discussed the impact on the fisheries from the fuel spills. He stated that there were no known ecological impacts from EDB. He also stated that EDB had a low bioaccumulation factor and therefore did not easily build up in the fish. Mr. Hurley stated that the clean-up of the fuel spills would also have an impact on fisheries. Mr. Hurley listed the wildlife values of reverting the cranberry bogs and mentioned that many bogs interrupted the natural state of the rivers. He stated that a possible problem in reverting the bogs would be the potential overgrowth of stream channels. Questions and Comments Mr. Whritenour, executive secretary of the town of Mashpee, asked about the brook trout spawning habitat in relation to the Quashnet River in Mashpee. He also asked Mr. Hurley to explain how the clean-up program would disturb the spawning habitat. Mr. Hurley replied that the wild brook trout sought out areas where the groundwater was upwelling. The installation of an extraction well would alter the groundwater area where the fish spawned. He added that the dissolved oxygen levels may also be a problem. Recirculating wells, however, would not interrupt the spawning habitat as much. Mr. Whritenour asked Mr. Hurley if it would be possible to do some type of replication of habitat while involved in the clean-up process. Mr. Hurley responded that both replication of habitat and clean-up could occur. He said that the separation of the bogs from the stream may be a solution and perhaps something may be incorporated in the clean-up process. He also stated that the ecological risk from EDB to the fish was fairly minimal. Mr. Whritenour pointed out that Mashpee actively farmed the cranberry bogs and that 100% of the funds that were received from those operations were used for a conservation process or the acquisition of conservation lands to protect habitats. He also stated that a significant commitment was made to Mashpee to use this resource to help other conservation resources. Mr. Taurasi, of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP), stated that he understood that Mr. Hurley had said that EDB was not a problem in the fisheries. He then said that the test results from October 6, 1997 from the Quashnet River had shown EDB at .12 ppb in the brook trout and .13 ppb in the white sucker. Mr. Taurasi asked Ms. Krueger if those levels were a problem. Ms. Krueger replied that the size of the fish were taken into account as well as the particular assets of that survey. She then stated that DPH was surprised to see EDB in the fish but added that these were trace levels that did not pose a public health concern at this time. She also said that more fish surveys should be done to get a better picture of the situation. Mr. McDermott, a resident of Falmouth, asked whether the treatment plant on the Coonamessett River was a physical barrier for the migration of fish or any other species. Mr. Reback responded that the treatment plant itself was not a barrier but that the discharge pipe may be a problem and was currently being reviewed. Mr. Lefleur stated that this industry had made tremendous steps in preserving and protecting 52 thousand acres of land in southeastern Massachusetts. He stated that this area had some very important wildlife and was the third most densely populated state in the country. This area would see a tremendous amount of growth in the next ten years and the livelihoods of the cranberry growers were threatened as well as additional open space. He then said that there was a direct benefit to having this industry here because of the value of the open space and wild life habitat. Mr. Lefleur then stated that the surrounding uplands and wetlands also had to be taken into account. Mr. Hurley agreed with Mr. Lefleur to an extent. Mr. Reback stated that the Cranberry Growers Association was helping in the decision process. What are the Criteria for a Marketable Crop from the Bogs? Mr. Healy stated that the cranberry operators were family farmers who had invested their lives in these bogs. He also thanked some of the people from the Air Force, but added there were tremendous problems in terms of national leadership. He then stated that he had never run into a more recalcitrant group of people who have refused to do the right thing and help folks whose land and water had been ruined through no fault of their own. Mr. Healy thanked everyone who had been involved in obtaining the $800,000, which brought a lot of attention to Mashpee and Falmouth. He then asked what the best case scenario would be in terms of the clean-up process. He stated that this process should not occur repeatedly and that a precedent needed to be set now, not only for the family farmers, but for the towns as well. Mr. Healy went on to say that this was a very important issue and asked the Air Force to take the time to help change the policy in Washington. He added that the crops were not marketable now and that the Air Force needed to do right by the towns and the family farmers. Mr. Lefleur stated that the production of a marketable crop was a reoccurring issue. He said stated that the position of the industry had not changed much; if anything, it had become stronger in the sense that all of the impacted handlers and growers had unanimously decided not to utilize their fruit. He added that this decision had been made prior to the detection of the EDB in the fruit. Mr. Lefleur stated that the primary issue pertaining to obtaining a marketable crop was to have clean water. He also said that the establishment of a protocol for sampling and analysis was a critical component for speaking with one unified voice. Questions and Comments Mr. Handy, of Handy Cranberry Trust, stated that he was disturbed by the time frame being discussed by the military. He said that one third of the 75 acres that he farmed was effected and that not one person in this room would be too happy if one third of his income were wiped out. He felt that the testing protocol was a waste of time. It was known that EDB was in the water, everybody agreed that it was in the water, and it needed to be out of the water. Mr. Handy then stated that he was upset about the comments made by the Division of Marine Fisheries about the bogs. He said that he did not recall seeing anyone from the Division of Marine Fisheries working on the Coonamessett or Quashnet River, but the Handy Cranberry Trust had installed fish ladders and cleaned up the rivers. Mr. McGlennon stated that Mr. Hurley’s presentation had covered various ecological concerns relating to the clean-up process. Rep. Cahir stated that some of the frustrations that he heard were about the continual delays and the bureaucratic issues. He said that he and Senator Rauschenbach would continue to attempt to accelerate the reimbursement process. Mr. Adams, a local cranberry grower, said that he could not reiterate enough that the only issue here should be that the water had to be non-detect for EDB. This was the only issue that mattered. Mr. Healy stated that a tremendous amount of time had gone in to obtaining the $800,000 and encouraged the Air Force to continue to seek funds. He hoped that the process would not be so difficult in the future. Mr. Snyder, of AFCEE, stated that at this time only a small portion of FS-1 had been identified. He said that there was the equivalent of an earthen damn that was leaking and there was a small possibility of stopping the leak. He stated that problems occurred during the Fall Harvest plan. The balance of the fisheries impact and the current from the treated water also had to be addressed. He then said that there was no straightforward engineering problem and that he did not see a guarantee that the river would be non-detect at any time. Mr. Snyder then said that he did not want people to have false illusions that non-detect water was a prudent real goal. It may be, however there was no guarantee at this time. Mr. Lefleur stated that a long-term clean-up process was in store. He also said that there was no home for the 1998 cranberry crop and that some immediate problems needed to be addressed. He hoped that tonight’s meeting would stress the importance of the immediate need for compensation in 1998 and added that both long-term and short-term solutions were necessary. Mr. Healy stated that he appreciated Mr. Snyder’s honesty but felt that reimbursement was a separate issue. Mr. Ciavattieri, of the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency, requested that Col. Selstrom of AFCEE, address the group soon about the reimbursement and the potential loss of the 1998 crop. He inquired about the position of the Air Force and what they intended to do. What are the Town’s Concerns? Mr. Whritenour read the list of Mashpee’s recommendations and expectations (see attachment #4). He then said that the Handy Cranberry Bogs had changed dramatically in the last five years. The town share used to be approximately $25,000 and was now $100,000. He explained that the town leased the bogs to Mr. Handy and that it was very likely that the lease, when up for renewal, would automatically be turned over to Mr. Handy so that he could benefit from all of his hard work. Mr. Whritenour then stated that serious decisions needed to be made in terms of bog maintenance, increase of capital, and lease arrangements. Ms. Valiela stated that Falmouth had the same concerns as Mashpee (see attachment #5). She recommended that this group reconvene when more information had been gathered. She then encouraged the DPH to move forward on the testing protocol issue. Questions and Comments Mr. McDermott stated that the Coonamessett river appeared to be dead. He said that he understood that, until the plume cleared, there would be EDB in the river. Mr. McDermott also said that he would like to see a free flowing river full of herring, trout, and life as well as compensation for the cranberry growers. He concluded by saying that the river should be in harmony with nature. What are the Short (this year), Mid (two to five years) and Long (five plus years) Options for Proceeding? Col. Selstrom thanked everyone for the attending. He stated that in December of 1997 he and Mr. Lefleur had discussed the disbursement of the $800,000. He stated that there had been legislation last year because that had been the only way to obtain the funds within the scope of authority. He said that he hoped that this meeting would solidify the recommendations that he would take back to the Pentagon. Col. Selstrom then stated that the goals of the cranberry bogs and the fisheries seemed to be in competition and that somehow a win/win situation needed to be reached. He said that the protocol was important because very little was known about EDB. Col. Selstrom then said that Mr. Healy had pointed out earlier that there was a two tier process, the 1998 crop and future effected crops. He concluded by saying that recommendations would be made to the Pentagon that an effort would be made to keep everyone well informed. Ms. Caffyn asked Col. Selstrom if it were true that the rivers might never be free of EDB. Mr. Snyder remarked that he had said earlier that there was no engineering certainty at this point to guarantee that the rivers could be non-detect. He said that there was a difficult engineering problem. Ms. Caffyn said that the achievement of the present goals depended on the fact that the rivers would return to non-detect. She then asked when this information would become available. Mr. Snyder replied that according to the schedule for FS-1, there should be a proposal by January of 1999. Col. Selstrom stated that monies for remedial action were being identified but what that action would be was still not known. Ms. Walker, a Sandwich resident, stated that the cranberry growers had been reimbursed last year because of the EDB in the fruit and added that Ocean Spray had a standard that the water had to be non-detect for the entire growing season. Mr. Lefleur stated that all handlers of fruit held to that standard. Mr. Healy asked Col. Selstrom when he was planning to go to the Pentagon with the recommendations. Col. Selstrom responded that he was awaiting the results of the February 9, 1998 meeting on protocol. Ms. Valiela said that the towns would like to know if the recommendations that Col. Selstrom brought to the Pentagon would be different from the recommendations from the towns of Falmouth and Mashpee. Mr. Patrick, a Falmouth selectman, asked about long-term compensation. He stated that the towns and cranberry growers should not have to depend on legislation each year and that there should be a line item in the budget for compensation. Col. Selstrom said that he appreciated that comment and would take it into consideration. Mr. Lefleur stated that Col. Selstrom needed to leave tonight knowing what the decided recommendations were. He said that the long-term decision matrix was unclear but, that the towns and growers did not wish to give up cultivation of the bogs. They wanted to maintain the bogs and they had to be compensated for their losses. Mr. Lefleur stated that everyone had agreed upon the compensation and added that the long-term issues also needed to be addressed. Mr. McDermott asked how much of the $800,000 represented cost of production versus loss of profit. He said that it would seem that if the berries were not grown there would then be a savings in damages and compensation. The compensation would be for the loss of the cranberries only, not for the cost of production of the cranberries as well. Mr. Lefleur responded that the properties needed to be maintained in order to efficiently go back into production when the time came. Mr. Caruso, of the University of Massachusetts Cranberry Experimental Station stated that the best case scenario would be that that the clean-up proceeded as quickly as possible and there would not be a marketable cranberry crop for a number of years. He went on to say that, despite the fact that there would not be a marketable crop for some time, it was still important to keep the bogs free from disease, insects and weeds that would deem them non-productive. Mr. Caruso reiterated that the bogs needed to be well-maintained so that when they got back on line, they would be right where they should be. Mr. Taurasi thanked Col. Selstrom for the work that he had done. He also stated that the size of the FS-1 plume was not known and asked whether treatment at FS-1 could start now despite the fact that the totality of the plume was unclear. Mr. Snyder replied that FS-1 was a different situation than FS-28. He stated that FS-1 had more of a spring flow to grab which created a problem. Mr. McGlennon asked if an interim treatment could be used during the process of the investigation. Mr. Snyder said that yes, he would consider that option. Ms. Caffyn stated that Col. Selstrom was "hanging his hat" on the protocol issue. She said that the issue was clean water and she did not want to see a delay due to the protocol issue. Col. Selstrom asked how it could be demonstrated that all was Okay if there was no attention to protocol. Again Ms. Caffyn stressed her concerns about placing so much emphasis on the protocol. Col. Selstrom stated that he appreciated Ms. Caffyn’s concerns. Ms. Krueger stated that because food was growing in a potential hazardous waste site, the protocol was important. She added that this was not a normal situation. Mr. Lefleur stated that protocol would be valuable in assessing the timing of the next marketable crop. However, there was no marketable crop in 1998 and protocol was not needed to address that issue. Mr. Healy agreed with Mr. Lefleur. Col. Selstrom stated that it was a judgment call and that he was not going to play "kick the can down the road". He said that he wanted to solve the problems all at once. Identify Next Steps Mr. McGlennon stated that the next step would be the February 9, 1998 protocol meeting. He also said, and that Col. Selstrom would consider alternative compensation approaches for 1998 and beyond. Mr. McGlennon asked whether the group would like to meet again. After some discussion, it was decided that the group would meet again on March 4, 1998 from 6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. Mr. McGlennon stated that the funding issue, the protocol issue and updates on FS-1 and FS-28 would be on the agenda for the upcoming meeting. Adjourn Mr. McGlennon thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting at 8:55 P.M.
|
