Meeting Minutes

Agenda Item #1. Welcome and Introductions

Mr. Karson, a community involvement specialist for the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), introduced himself and convened the meeting at 6:30 PM. He then introduced Mr. Bud Hoda, a Project Manager for AFCEE who is assigned to the Fuel Spill 1 (FS-1 ) groundwater plume. Mr. Karson stated that the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to review the proposed plan for the FS-1 groundwater plume. He noted that the following people are in attendance: Mr. Jim Snyder, the Program Manager for AFCEE; Mr. Mike Minior, Mr. Snyders’ Deputy Manager; Mr. Bob Lim, from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and Mr. Len Pinaud, from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). He then reviewed the agenda.

Agenda Item #2. Presentation of Proposed Plan and AFCEE’s Preferred Alternative

Mr. Hoda reiterated that the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to present the AFCEE preferred alternative for the FS-1 cleanup. He noted that the proposed plan was released last week and the public comment period is from June 4, 1999 to July 3, 1999. He encouraged the public to read the proposed plan and contact Mr. Karson if they would like more information. Mr. Hoda noted that the Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) reports are available in the four local public libraries; those reports contain more detailed information about the data and about how the different alternatives were analyzed. Mr. Hoda stated that the public hearing is scheduled for June 23, 1999. He noted that feedback from the public could be incorporated into the final decision.

Mr. Hoda reported that the draft Record of Decision (ROD) will be completed by the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) deadline of August 24, 1999. He stated that the final ROD will be completed by December 28, 1999, followed by the remedial design in fiscal year (FY) 2000, with the construction scheduled to take place in FY 2001. Mr. Hoda emphasized that the biggest part of the construction has already been completed.

Mr. Hoda displayed a map and pointed to the location of the FS-1 plume, and the location of the source area, an aircraft turnaround where fuel dump valves were tested from 1955 -1970. He reported that fuel was spilled in this area, and ultimately went into the soil and groundwater. He stated that most of the other fuel contaminants have degraded; the remaining contaminant is mostly ethylene dibromide (EDB). Mr. Hoda stated that the EDB plume is approximately 7800 feet long, 1200 feet at its widest, and 100 feet thick. He noted that this plume is detached from the source area, and there is approximately 50 feet of clean water overlying the plume. Mr. Hoda stated that the EDB plume is discharging along the Quashnet Bogs.

Mr. Hoda reported that the data indicates that there are no contaminants of concern in the soil. He reported that toluene, lead, and thallium have been detected in the groundwater at the source area, at concentrations above the action level. Mr. Hoda stated that the highest concentration of EDB detected is 10 parts per billion (ppb) in the groundwater, and 1.43 ppb in the surface water. He noted that the drinking water standard maximum contaminant level (MCL) for EDB is .02 ppb.

Mr. Hoda reported that nine pumping configurations were evaluated, five of which were further evaluated in more detail. He noted that three of those configurations were extraction, treatment, and reinjection (ETR) systems, one was "no action," and one was "institutional controls." Mr. Hoda noted that these alternatives were evaluated using EPA criteria.

FS-1 Alternative 2b: Quashnet River/Bog Separation Plan Pilot Test

Mr. Hoda stated that when contamination was found upwelling into the Quashnet Bog, there were concerns about exposure to the public. He reported that AFCEE immediately responded by installing one deep extraction well, producing 200 gallons per minute (gpm), and 175 shallow extraction wells, producing 410 gpm. Mr. Hoda explained that the extracted water is treated at the treatment plant, and reinjected via a reinjection trench at 200 gpm – the remaining 410 gpm is reintroduced in the surface water in the river. Mr. Hoda commented that this is an extremely complex project due to ecological sensitivity in this area. He noted that caution was taken to minimize any impacts to the trout habitat and ecology in this area. Mr. Hoda reported that berms are being installed to prevent any contamination from entering the cranberry bogs, in the hope that the bogs can be returned to production.

Mr. Hoda reported that the capital cost for this alternative is $3.95 million, the 11-year operation and maintenance (O&M) cost is $5.54 million, and the present worth of this alternative is $9.42 million.

FS-1 Alternative 3b

Mr. Hoda commented that the purpose of Alternative 2b is to stop any upwelling of the contaminant in the bog area, however, this alternative would not clean up the aquifer in an expedited fashion. He stated that to expedite the cleanup of the aquifer other alternatives were considered. Mr. Hoda explained that Alternative 3b includes 17 extraction wells, extracting 400 gpm. He noted that this alternative will reduce the treatment time from eleven to seven years. Mr. Hoda reported that the total surface discharge would be 800 gpm. He stated that the capital cost for this alternative is $6.4 million, the seven year O&M cost is $4.15 million and the present worth is $10.56 million.

Mr. Hoda noted that the bog/river separation plan is a pilot test. He explained that this is an aggressive extraction system at the toe of the plume, and its impact on the ecology is not known. He stated that the pilot test would run for a year and if it is successful then it would become a permanent feature; if the plan does not work, then other alternatives will be considered.

Alternative 3

Mr. Hoda explained that this alternative includes the installation of 33 extraction wells, with less aggressive extraction at the toe to be more ecologically "friendly." He stated that the extraction wells would pump 600 gpm, and 200 gpm would be reinjected just north of the K1 bog, which would provide the upwelling of the groundwater for the trout habitat. Mr. Hoda reported that the capital cost for this alternative is $4.63 million, the seven year O&M cost is $4.04 million, and the present worth is $8.7 million.

FS-1 Preferred Alternative

Mr. Hoda reported that the preferred alternative to address the FS-1 plume is Alternative 3b. He explained that this alternative reduces the time of the cleanup from eleven to seven years. He also mentioned that even though the evaluation includes 17 wells, the exact number of wells is not yet definite. He explained that during the remedial design, a better pump scenario, one that will provide the same rate of cleanup and be more efficient, will be considered. Mr. Hoda stated that there will be long-term groundwater monitoring at the source area. He explained that, as a result of the past eight to nine years of monitoring, it has been determined that the contaminants of concern are stable at the source areas and are not migrating – it is believed that those contaminants will naturally degrade. Mr. Hoda further explained that if it is determined that those contaminants might be migrating, the appropriate action will be taken. At this time, however, an extraction system does not appear to be needed, but long-term monitoring will be done.

Mr. Hoda displayed a map titled "Quashnet River EDB Surface Water Sampling Concentrations." He noted that the contamination levels in surface water have been decreasing. He stated that the habitat of the Quashnet River is also being considered, in order to determine if the fish population is being impacted. Mr. Hoda reported that the data indicates that the fish are not being impacted, therefore, the system appears to be working as expected and there is a good chance that it will become permanent. He noted that this is initial data and more data will be presented at the public hearing on June 23, 1999. Mr. Hoda then showed photographs of the FS-1 well-points, the K2 East berm, and the FS-1 expanded well-points at the K6 bog.

Agenda Item #3. Questions and Answers

Mr. Dow commented that the Mashpee town well (P-11) appears to be located in close proximity to the plume. He then asked if the zone of contribution (ZOC) of that well will overlap the area where the FS-1 plume has contaminated the groundwater. Mr. Hoda replied that the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has conducted the modeling, which shows that the ZOC will not overlap. He added that if the planned production rate were doubled, the ZOC would come close to the source areas, but it would not intercept. Mr. Dow clarified that he was referring to the plume itself and not the source area. Mr. Hoda replied that the ZOC will go parallel to the plume but it will not intercept. Mr. Dow asked if it is correct to say that there will not be any overlap between the ZOC of well P-11 and the area where the plume is located. Mr. Hoda replied that the current modeling indicates that this is true, however, monitoring will be done to ensure that there is no overlap.

Mr. Dow asked if it will take seven years to reduce the EDB levels to below MCL. Mr. Hoda replied that this is correct. Mr. Dow asked if well P-11 will be put on-line within that timeframe. Mr. Hoda replied that well P-11 is scheduled to be online by the year 2009, therefore, it will not.

Mr. Lim asked if it is correct that Alternative 3b does not include any action to address the soils at the source area. Mr. Hoda replied that this is correct.

Mr. Dow asked why the thallium, toluene, and lead were not moving from the source area, as seen at other plumes on the base. Mr. Hoda replied that the data indicates that those contaminants are not moving. He stated that the source of the thallium is unknown, however, it is thought to be mobilized from the soil because of low dissolved oxygen (DO) in the source area. Mr. Hoda explained that as the fuels degrade and the DO becomes higher, the thallium does not mobilize.

Mr. Karson noted that the proposed plan indicates that the preferred alternative includes monitoring of the source area groundwater, which will continue throughout the life of the project. He stated that if conditions change, and mobility is seen, actions will be taken to address that concern.

Mr. Dow commented that thallium has been detected in groundwater in some of the wells in the Impact Area study, which do not have low oxygen conditions, so it seems that there must be an active source. He stated that thallium is found scattered as a pollutant throughout the base and this is not the only place it occurs. Mr. Hoda said that thallium has been detected in the Southwest Operable Unit (SWOU) at 8 ppb, and while this cannot be fully applicable at this site, it does indicate that thallium is elevated in other areas as well.

Ms. Caffyn asked if the MassDEP and the EPA approve of the time schedule. She commented that the time schedule is very general in that there is a 2001 date and not a specific month. Mr. Snyder replied that a date has been established for the ROD to be signed in December 1999. Immediately following the ROD, the Air Force has to present to the EPA and the MassDEP a schedule to get the remedial action in place. He stated that currently the Air Force has "globally" determined that those are the years in which the work will be done. Mr. Snyder stated that a detailed schedule with enforceable dates will be established.

Ms. Caffyn commented that this seems "very far away." She further commented that it is amazing to her that this plume, which was put aside as not being terribly important about three years ago, is now at a depth of 100 feet. She stated that the schedule indicates that construction will occur in "FY 2001," which could be December 2001 – there does not seem to be a great urgency. Ms. Caffyn also said that she believes that with all of the elements that have been indicated, including fresh waters, ecology, and perhaps peoples lives, this does not look like a plan with great urgency and this worries her.

Mr. Snyder agreed that it is a very sensitive ecological environment in which the Air Force is trying to work. He mentioned that there have been issues with the construction project, and working in that river habitat. Mr. Snyder explained that it is a sensitive, small stream, not to be addressed with great speed and "reckless abandon"- he emphasized the importance of understanding how things are behaving. Mr. Snyder explained that this is why the pilot test is being conducted. He stated that the pilot test will be monitored while the design for the groundwater plume is being finished – this requires some design time. He noted that there are construction issues that need to be addressed as well as some property issues. Mr. Snyder stated that most of 1998 was spent conducting design work for decisions made in 1997, and this year those systems are being put in the ground. He explained that this will be a similar process to what was done for Ashumet Valley, CS-10 and LF-1 – a decision was made on a concept and it takes approximately a year to reach an agreed-to, safe-to-go-forward-with, design.

Ms. Caffyn asked if sampling has been done downstream, as was done when contamination was found south of Route 151. Mr. Snyder replied that it has. Ms. Caffyn inquired about the findings of that sampling. Mr. Hoda replied that he did not have those data, however, the southernmost well, 36SW0001, is non-detect. He noted that the largest part of the treatment system has already been constructed - the upwelling of the contamination in the surface water has been stopped to prevent the exposure potential. Ms. Caffyn commented that Mr. Hoda is making the assumption that all of the upwelling is happening "there" and it cannot be happening any other place, which she does not believe to be true. She expressed concern about downstream and the timeline being slower than she would have liked. Ms. Caffyn also expressed concern about the close proximity of the town well, P-11, to the plume. She asked how close the town well is to the plume. Mr. Hoda replied that he did not have this information, however, he assured her that AFCEE will ensure that P-ll is not impacted.

Mr. Dow asked why the concentrations detected in well 36SW0303 increased from .052 ppb in April, 1999 to .192 ppb in May, 1999. Mr. Gadd, of Jacobs Engineering, replied that the concentrations in this well increased because of the location on the northern end of the extraction system, between the treatment plant and the pumphouse. He explained that this line of shallow well extraction points has temporarily been shut down, allowing for the vacuum to be increased in the southern end where more apparent upwelling is being seen. He further explained that the capacity of the well-point system is such that the vacuum and the production of the water cannot be increased, so an attempt is being made to balance and fine-tune the system. Mr. Gadd stated that this is part of the analysis of the system – in effect, where part of the system has been shut down, it increases - now the data can be analyzed and some of the wells in the north end can be tuned, and some of the wells in the southern end can possibly be shut down to some degree, in order to balance the system and ultimately achieve a more effective capture. Mr. Gadd explained that this is just part of the pilot program system of analyzing the data, sampling the water, and tuning the system to more effectively work the system.

Agenda Item #4. Adjourn

Mr. Hoda noted that additional information will be presented at the public hearing. Mr. Karson added that the public hearing is scheduled for June 23, 1999. He reminded the attendees that the public comment period begins tomorrow, and the documents that detail the results from the investigations and the plans are in the four local public libraries. He adjourned the meeting at 7:06 PM.