Land Fill 1
Agenda Item #1. Goals of Meeting, Groundrules, and Agenda Review: Mr. Patrick Field from the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) convened the meeting at 6:33 P.M. He stated that the goals of the meeting were to update the public on the status of the LF-1 plume and the remedial decision, to provide information on monitored natural attenuation (MNA), to explain the remaining differences among the parties; and to obtain feedback from the public on points raised. Mr. Field briefly explained the groundrules. He then reviewed the agenda and stated that in addition, Mr. Paul Marchessault of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) would be presenting information on MNA, and the Cataumet Civic Association would also be allotted time to express their concerns. Agenda Item #2. Introduction: Mr. Haydon Coggeshall, a Bourne Selectman, stated that he thought the meeting was long overdue. He stated that, as a member of the Senior Management Board (SMB), he was concerned that there had been "slippage" in the dedication from the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) and the regulators, in relation to Land Fill 1 (LF-1). He stated that commitments had been made and not kept. He stated that it was important for the citizens to ask questions and express their concerns. Mr. Coggeshall urged AFCEE and the Department of Defense (DoD) to keep any commitments made to the public and to provide truthful comments and answers to the public as well. Ms. Virginia Valiela, a Falmouth Selectman and member of the SMB, stated that although Falmouth had only a small portion of the plume within it’s boarders, the Falmouth Selectmen and citizens cared about what was happening. She stated that the meeting was an opportunity for the public to ask questions and discuss concerns. Agenda Item #3. Overview of Systematic Environmental Decision-Making at LF-1: Mr. Frank Ciavattieri, US EPA Mr. George Crombie, US EOEA Mr. Frank Ciavattieri, Deputy Director of the US EPA’s superfund program in New England, stated in regard to LF-1, agreements were reached on major portions of the decision, however not on one major element of the decision. He stated that the Federal and State Regulators and the Air Force were deficient at keeping the public apprised of what was going on during discussions regarding the remedy for LF-1. Mr. Ciavatteri stated that in the eyes of the US EPA and the Commonwealth, a remedy decision had been made for the LF-1 plume. He stated that the decision was MNA for the portion of the plume west of Route 28 and a pump and treat system, also referred to as modified Alternative E, east of Route 28. Mr. Ciavatteri added that consistent with the schedules for those plumes, the startup date for full system operation for LF-1(September 15, 1999) remained in effect. He stated that the Air Force would submit to the US EPA a execution plan which will propose enforceable milestones for conducting the design of a treatment system and MNA. Mr. Ciavatteri stated that although there was a remedy and a schedule, the Air Force had proposed that the project move down a "multi pronged approach". He explained that during the periods between now and the time the design of a pump and treat system must begin, the Air Force would like to conduct an analysis on the possible use of MNA, or combination of MNA and pump and treat systems for the portion of the plume east of Route 28. He went on to say that the Air Force had also requested that, based on the results of the MNA, that the US EPA and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) revisit the decision. Mr. Ciavatteri stated that the US EPA had agreed to revisit the decision if the Air Force successfully completed two major activities during the above mentioned time frame. The first activity would be to establish that MNA was an appropriate technical and publicly acceptable alternative that was agreeable to the regulators. The second requirement was the performance of a natural resource injury study and preliminary damage assessment. He added that while those two activities would be taking place, the Air Force was expected to continue to move forward to design a pump and treat system. Mr. Ciavatteri stated that the position of the US EPA was that if MNA were determined to be technically acceptable and if there were natural resource injuries associated with implementation of such an alternative, then the Air Force must as a minimum work with the local community and the natural resource trustees to identify potential projects that could be implemented for the restoration, rehabilitation or acquisition of equivalent resources. He stated that the US EPA would prefer that the Air Force provide the necessary funds for implementing those projects as part of any remedy decision. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that the concept of determining natural resource injury and assessing damages was not new, however, actual implementation of those statutes was new and not yet tested. He stated that this concept was on the cutting edge of policy implementation. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that Mr. John DeVillars had indicated that he would be very influenced by any public response or reaction to whether the US EPA should consider revisiting the present decision on the LF-1 plume, and what the public’s involvement needs to be in that process. Mr. George Crombie, of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), stated that the recommended alternative was submitted to the US EPA and the MA DEP, who reviewed the recommendation and determined their position. He stated that it was the recommendation of the RPMs to install an extraction fence east of Route 28 and allow MNA west of Route 28. He stated that the ultimate goal to avoid lengthy negotiations was to reach an agreement. Mr. Crombie stated that if the Air Force could establish that MNA was a better remedy, then the Commonwealth would consider it as a second option. He added that the recommended remedy would have to go through public discussion before being approved. Mr. Crombie stated that an issue had been raised regarding how the proposed alternative would be evaluated. He then listed three parts of the alternative that were discussed; a modified pump and treat system; definition of natural attenuation and potential harm to the environment; and natural resources damages. Mr. Crombie stated that the clean up consisted of actually cleaning up the plume and the damages. He stated that there was a value associated with the aquifer, and once polluted, the aquifer was damaged. He stated that it was thought that the only way the community would consider the proposed modified Alternative E would be if there were natural resource damage payment to the community. Mr. Crombie stated that if natural resource damages were to be discussed, the natural resource board would have to approve the process, and any alternative chosen would have to have the money in the bank. He stated that there were discussions regarding the language for this proposal, and an agreement was not reached. Mr. Crombie stated that, at that time, the recommendations from the community and the matrix management were to build an extraction fence and MNA west of Route 28. He stated that the Air Force was within an enforceable schedule to have the fence built and in operation by September 15, 1999. He stated that if there had ever been a decision to change the original agreement, it would have gone directly to the public. He stated that the community groups had done a tremendous job in putting all the pieces together. Mr. Crombie stated that the understanding was that the US EPA would never give the final decision process away because it was their responsibility to make the final decision. He stated that everyone was on the same timeline to put the system in place by September 15, 1999. Agenda Item #4. Natural Attenuation, Mr. Paul Marchessault, US EPA Mr. Marchessault, the remedial project manager for the US EPA, introduced himself and explained that he would be presenting US EPA’s policy on natural attenuation. He stated that the policy had been issued on November 18, 1997 and was finalized on December 1, 1997. He explained that MNA was a reliance on natural attenuation processes to achieve site-specific cleanup levels within a time frame that was reasonable when compared to that offered by more active methods (see attachment #1 which includes all handouts from this presentation). Mr. Marchessault stated that "natural attenuation process" meant physical, chemical, or biological processes that under favorable conditions, act without human intervention to reduce the contaminants within the plume. Mr. Marchessault stated that copies of the US EPA’s final guidance on natural attenuation were available through Mr. Jerry Whitaker at the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). Mr. Marchessault listed three ways in which potential risk posed by contaminants could be reduced. He stated that natural attenuation was not appropriate as a sole remediation plan, and source control measures would almost always be necessary. He stated that currently there was a cap for LF-1. Mr. Marchessault stated that the decision to use natural attenuation must be supported by site specific data. He stated that once the data were gathered, there were three types of "evidence" which should be used in the evaluation. Historical data, hydrogeologic and chemical data, and field data could be used. Mr. Marchessault listed potential advantages and disadvantages associated with MNA.
Mr. Marchessault explained that deed restrictions preventing installation of wells on a certain property were an example of an institutional control. Mr. Marchessault stated that the US EPA had expected that MNA would be used in conjunction with or as follow-up to active remediation. Mr. Marchessault then listed the US EPA’s considerations when determining whether MNA was an appropriate remedy:
Mr. Marchessault listed the factors that the US EPA would consider to determine reasonableness of a time frame.
Mr. Marchessault stated that performance monitoring was a necessary factor during natural attenuation. He then stated that the natural attenuation policy also allowed for a contingency remedy. He explained that a contingency remedy was a "backup" remedy in the event that the "selected" remedy, in this case MNA, failed to perform as anticipated. He listed certain "triggers" which could possibly indicate that a contingency remedy would be needed:
Mr. Marchessault stated that the US EPA’s policy recommended that remedies using MNA evaluate the need for contingency measures. He went on to say that contingency remedies were particularly appropriate when assuming that the MNA would occur based on modeling data as opposed to monitoring data. Mr. Marchessault stated in summary that the US EPA did not view MNA to be a "no action" remedy, but rather a means of addressing contamination under a limited set of site circumstances. He went on to say that MNA should be, and currently was, compared to other active alternatives. He stated that MNA should not be used where the approach would result in significant contamination migration or unacceptable impacts to receptors. Mr. Marchessault stated that performance monitoring was an integral part of MNA. He then stated that contingency measures should be incorporated into the natural attenuation remedy. Agenda Item #5. Description of Air Force Remedial Decision: Mr. Jim Snyder, AFCEE Mr. Jim Snyder, the Air Force Program Manager, stated that a dual track or contingent approach was being discussed. He added that the active approach, Alternative E, was proceeding, and the Air Force was moving forward with an evaluation and demonstration of natural attenuation at LF-1. Mr. Snyder stated that activities were also planned in the natural resource injury and damage process. Mr. Snyder explained that their were several alternatives being considered, and Alternative E was the preferred community approach. He went on to say however, that consensus had not been reached as to the best technical approach to deal with LF-1. He stated that consequently both systems would be worked simultaneously until resolution was reached. Mr. Snyder stated that Alternative E was the communities preferred choice. He stated that the Cataumet citizens made it clear that a remedial system was not desired in the community. He stated that construction impacts were not warranted with the low plume concentrations in the western portion. Mr. Snyder also stated that pump and treat technology would not be an efficient operation for a plume with low concentrations and large volumes. He stated that the estimated concentration of total volatile organic compounds (VOCs) going through the treatment plant was 2 parts per billion(ppb). He stated that the main constituents of concern in the LF-1 plume were tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and carbon tetrachloride, all of which have a safe drinking standard of 5 ppb. Mr. Snyder stated that the Air Force was also concerned that the environmental impacts associated with Alternative E may outweigh the benefits. He explained that there was a concern with the difficulty of construction on Route 28. Mr. Snyder stated that there was a concern that the power and construction emissions would exceed the total VOCs in the plume. Mr. Snyder displayed a map of the conceptual layout of Alternative E as presented during the decision criteria process. He stated that the refinement process of Alternative E would include data collection to select the optimum location for a construction site. Mr. Snyder displayed a slide of the spring and summer of 1998 activities associated with Alternative E. He stated that a project execution plan was due January 30, 1998. He went on to say that a sampling and analysis plan would follow. Mr. Snyder stated that additional wells would be installed in the area, and existing wells would be re-sampled in order to refine their understanding of the plume. He stated that modeling, or computer simulation of how the plumes would behave, had been done to date, specifically advective modeling. He explained that advective modeling evaluated water flow as particles of water in the aquifer and whether a series of wells installed would capture those particles of water. Mr. Snyder stated that the next phase included fate & transport modeling which was more predictive of how the plume would actually look in concentrations over time. He stated that the above mentioned activities will be incorporated into the solution refinement for Alternative E, the active system. He stated that the initiation of a firm system design would then be started. Mr. Snyder stated that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Barnstable County Science Advisory Panel (BCSAP) supported MNA as an option for LF-1. He stated that the Air Force preferred MNA because it was protective of human health and the environment. He added that Alternative E did require further evaluation and demonstration to satisfy the requirements that Mr. Marchessault had discussed earlier. Mr. Snyder stated that MNA was not a no-action alternative. He went on to say that MNA required a plan, evaluation, and monitoring of performance. He stated that along with EPA’s policy on MNA, AFCEE, the US EPA, and others in the environmental industry were developing more detailed protocols for dealing with VOC plumes. Mr. Snyder displayed a slide of activities for spring and summer 1998. He stated that the Air Force would be evaluating MNA alone and in concert with other remedial alternatives. Mr. Snyder gave a brief review of LF-1 data (see attachment #3). He displayed a map of the LF-1 cross section lines. He then displayed a map of the VOC isoconcentration along cross section A-A’ at LF-1. Mr. Snyder pointed out the location of Bourne wells 2 and 5 and the Massachusetts Military Reservation(MMR) boundary. He explained that the map displayed the northern lobe of LF-1 and then pointed to the location of Alternative E. Mr. Snyder displayed a map of a cross section of the southern lobe of LF-1. He noted that the southern lobe appeared to be taking an upswing, and the data gap work would help further characterize the southern lobe and where it was surfacing. Mr. Snyder then displayed a map of the LF-1 residential sampling in Bourne. He stated that residential sampling was a key aspect of the sampling program at the IRP office. He stated that there were currently 400 - 600 residents in AFCEE’s semi annual private well sampling program. Mr. Snyder stated that there had not been a maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceedence in any of the wells shown on the map. Mr. Snyder explained that MCL referred to the safe drinking water level. Mr. Snyder displayed a map of the LF-1 basewide sampling program sampled locations (Pre-1996). He stated that basewide there were approximately 2600 monitoring wells in AFCEE’s current network. Mr. Snyder then displayed a map of the LF-1 basewide sampling locations during 1996 - 1997. The next slide showed the LF-1 data gap investigations sampled locations (Pre-1996). He stated that the locations had been sampled from 1993 through 1995. Mr. Snyder then displayed a map which showed the work, done primarily by OpTech in 1996, to help define the plume and develop pumping scenarios. He stated that AFCEE came on board in May of 1996, and then displayed a map of the AFCEE - Jacobs Engineering sampled locations from May 1996 to the present. Mr. Snyder displayed a map of the highest concentrations of TCE, PCE, and carbon tetrachloride detected during the sampling events from 1996 to 1997. He then displayed a map of the proposed basewide sampling events for 1998. He pointed to existing wells that would be re-sampled in March. Mr. Snyder stated that the validated or preliminary data would hopefully be back by March or April 1998. Mr. Snyder displayed a map of the proposed data gap investigations which would be done to support Alternative E and MNA. He stated that surface water sampling and ecological baseline work would be part of this activity. He stated that work would be done to better define the leading edge of the southern lobe of the plume. Mr. Snyder pointed to the location of the plume with concentrations of 20 - 40 ppb and stated that fate & transport modeling would be done in that area. Mr. Snyder defined the components of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process (see attachment #2). He defined natural resource as land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, groundwater, drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, or otherwise controlled by the United States, any State or local government. He then defined injury as a measurable adverse change in the physical or chemical quality or the viability of a natural resource resulting directly or indirectly from exposure to a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance. Mr. Snyder defined damage as the amount of money sought by the natural resource trustee as compensation for injury, destruction, or loss of natural resources. Mr. Snyder stated that the primary resource trustee for this situation was the Commonwealth, being the groundwater trustee. He stated that the base and the DoD were the trustees for the natural resources on military property. Mr. Snyder then briefly explained the NRDA process. A pre-assessment would be done first to determine whether there had been a release. An assessment plan would then be developed to assess injury to natural resources. Mr. Snyder stated that the next phase, injury determination, included data collection and review. Quantification would then be done to determine the extent of injury, and the trustees would then enter into the process of damage determination. Mr. Snyder stated that if damages were determined, the amount of money and type of projects would have to be established, and then implementation of those projects would need to be planned. He stated that the final stage, post-assessment, would document the natural resource process. Mr. Snyder stated that it was AFCEE’s interpretation that the trustees were required by Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to investigate the extent of injuries. Mr. Snyder stated that the MMR trustee council was currently being chartered and that the Air Force would work with the council or individual trustees to get through their part of the process. Mr. Snyder stated that the Air Force had agreed to estimate the extent of any natural resources injury as part of it’s LF-1 decision. He stated that if injury was determined, the process of evaluating damages would be initiated by the trustees. He went on to say that if damages were assessed and paid, the trustees would determine the appropriate project, with public involvement, to restore, replace, or acquire equivalent. Mr. Snyder then listed other LF-1 activities which included replacement of Bourne water district wells 1 and 5. He stated that private well users in the area would be identified and offered public water connections. Mr. Snyder stated that the aquifer at Scraggy Neck would be evaluated and if private well actions were required, then they would be initiated. Mr. Snyder stated that community meetings would continue to be held to provide data and status of the project. Agenda Item #6. Concerns from the Cataumet Civic Associates: Mr. Pete Fisher Mr. Pete Fisher, the Vice President of the Cataumet Civic Associates (CCA), stated that due to the history of broken promises, it was difficult to believe everything he heard anymore. He stated that a lot of good work had been done, and they had come a long way to natural attenuation. Mr. Fisher stated that Mr. Snyder, Mr. Marchessault, and Mr. Pinaud should have all received a letter regarding LF-1 remediation from Mr. Bill Locke, president of CCA, Mr. George Seaver, chairman of the LF-1 Committee, and Mr. John York, technical advisor and resident. He stated that copies of the letter were available, and he then read the letter aloud (see attachment #4). Mr. John York introduced himself and stated that he would be presenting details on the above mentioned comments. He stated that at a public meeting approximately a year ago last February, Mr. Snyder made a comment that AFCEE already had a year’s worth of background data for all plumes that would be involved in the decision criteria matrix process. Mr. York stated that when asked whether there was a year’s worth of background data for LF-1, Mr. Snyder replied that there was not a years work of background data for LF-1, however, that data was currently being collected. Mr. York stated that further questioning had determined that the data was not actually being collected, there was not plan to collect data, however a plan was being developed and should have been available by late 1997. He stated that in the written comments to the decision criteria matrix schedule and schedule document a comment had been submitted by the hydrologist from the Barnstable County Commission stating that recognition had to be made of the fact that the background data was not going to be available. Mr. York stated that the response from the US EPA, MA DEP, and the IRP was that a year’s worth of background data for all plumes would be available by the decision point (November 3, 1997). He stated that the response was the exact opposite of what he had received from Mr. Snyder regarding the same document. Mr. York stated that Mr. Snyder conceded that it was an error. Mr. York stated that he suggested that it somehow be presented the fact that there was an error. He stated that no correction had ever been issue, and it currently stands on the document. Mr. York stated that his main focus had been to keep the actual monitoring being done as close to what was being claimed as being done. He stated that a draft ecological sampling and analysis plan came out in May of 1997 which described an ambitious sampling plan scheduled to start in July of 1997. Mr. York stated that between the July 1997 date and the present, one round of sampling had occurred for certain surface water samples described in that document. He went on to say that nothing else that was described in that document occurred. Mr. York stated that the final plan was due to be released in March 1998. He stated that the above mentioned sampling was the total ecological receptor sampling at the probable discharge points that had occurred to date, which describes a discrepancy between what has occurred and what sometimes claims to have occurred. Mr. York stated that he would like Mr. Crombie and Mr. Ciavattieri to comment on the discrepancy. Mr. York stated that currently MNA was being proposed to be pursued as part of the dual track. He stated that a statement had been made that the dual track did not lose any time. He stated that ground was being lost on MNA. He went on to say that the plans that were presented this evening by Mr. Snyder did not have the kind of activities that would have been in that plan had MNA already have been pursued. Mr. York stated that it was the position of the Cataumet Civic Associates that monitoring tied to the decision making process would get pushed back and never happen. He stated that the explanation from the IRP as to why the plan scheduled to begin in July 1997 was not done was because those samples were not necessary for the decision making process. He stated that monitoring should be independent of any ongoing decision making process. He went on to say that there was no need for monitoring to be dependent on the decision making process. Mr. York stated that there was not excuse for the fact that monitoring had not begun in the past as it should have. Mr. York stated that the results of monitoring should presented quarterly and in a timely fashion, for example, within three weeks of sampling. He stated that it had taken approximately six months to get the temporary results from the one round of surface water sampling done in August or September 1997 in Red Brook Harbor. Mr. York stated that the track record to date for doing environmental monitoring was poor. He stated that the presented information regarding a monitored natural attenuation demonstration had do with deciding what kind of natural processes will occur. He stated that did not have anything to do with the process of doing MNA. He stated that the rest of the argument about the fate of "all these compounds" was not part of MNA. It was part of the decision process leading up to MNA. Mr. York stated that MNA, or a monitoring program should be pursued now, and should have been before. Mr. York then stated that the final schedule for the decision criteria matrix had said that if MNA were the only alternative pursued, the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) enforceable milestone for full system start up of MNA was February 1998. He stated that he hoped for comments both from Mr. Crombie and Mr. Ciavatierri. Mr. George Seaver referred to item #3 in the letter from the CCA, and stated that the risks associated with the laws themselves be included in the risk assessment that would be done when determining which alternative to be chosen. He then stated that the risks that had been taken into account when considering MNA were very low and did not include the risks from the laws themselves. He stated that the CERCLA fund had a clause, strict liability, which stated that anyone owning property over the plume could be sued for it’s cleanup costs. Mr. Seaver went on to say that there were also clauses that required disclosure by real estate agents to their customers. He stated that the above mentioned risks remain regardless of if MNA were the chosen alternative and were not presently included in the risk assessment. Mr. Seaver stated that NRDA was not a solution to this problem. He stated that the NRDA would be used as evidence in private law suits, and would encourage private law suits. Mr. Seaver stated that he thought any money received through the NRDA process would not be fairly distributed. He stated that the notion of the good neighbor policy by the stated and the equivalent policy by the federal government were well meaning however did not help. Agenda Item #7. Questions and Answers: Mr. Field briefly reviewed the groundrules for the questions and answers portion of the meeting, and then turned the microphone over to Mr. Ciavattieri and Mr. Crombie to respond to Mr. York’s and Mr. Seaver’s comments. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that he would not be honest suggesting that he knew the level of detail involved in the sampling protocols and schedules eluded to by Mr. York. He stated that he did know that when designing a data sampling program there needed to be objectives in mind. He stated that a significant amount of sampling and analysis had been done on the Cape to date. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that before he was involved with this project the initial focus of the efforts was to contain the plumes. He stated that there was a focus on a certain methodology for gathering data. He then stated that since the original Record of Decision (ROD) and the 60 percent design, the direction of the project had changed. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that an approach for basic containment had been replaced with containment and treatment. He stated that the goal was a final remedy, which required a different monitoring strategy and approach. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that MNA included significant changes in strategy in terms of monitoring. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that he accepted that a closer look at what had been done on the Cape needed to be taken, as well as a closer look at the potential to immediately begin a more comprehensive monitoring program. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that he did not agree with the suggestion that the double track would not lose any time. He stated that the situation on the MMR was unique. He stated that the Air Force had agreed upon final completion dates for all of the plumes in the absence of actually having determined what the remedies would be. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that this was a very unique process that had not been done at any other federal facility. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that they had a schedule to move ahead with a pump and treat system and MNA, to be designed and in place by the decided date. He stated that barring a decision difference, there would be a solution for the plumes in place by that date. Mr. Ciavattieri stated when the dates were negotiated with the Air Force there were three possible scenarios. He stated that the first was the time frame, should natural attenuation be chosen. He stated that the second was pump and treat. Mr. Ciavattieri then stated that a date had been chosen for the most comprehensive construction with the understanding that that date was the outside date, and once a remedy decision were made, there would be negotiations with the Air Force for a new milestone for that plume. He stated that there had never been the intention that those dates were default dates. He stated that the February 1998 date was only to provide a time frame as to how long it would take to complete a MNA track. Mr. Field asked whether it was correct to say that when the enforceable milestone for February 1998 MNA was announced, there were then further negotiations and the final enforceable date was the last out year date. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that the date had not been presented as an enforceable date, rather a possible time frame or milestone. Mr. Crombie stated that there was no place in the country where people had negotiated tougher than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He then stated that the Commonwealths position regarding LF-1 was Alternative E. He stated that the Military had wanted to look at another option. Mr. Crombie stated that the Commonwealth approved, pending that the military stayed on the enforceable deadline in place for Alternative E. He stated that negotiations were tough and complex, however, they were focused on determining the best remedy for the community that needed to be protected. Mr. York stated that the decision document, and the draft and final version of the schedule for the decision criteria matrix process, had clearly stated that, if MNA were the only alternative selected, there was an FFA enforceable milestone date of February 1998. He stated that he did not expect that date to be met, however, documents had been put out to the public making such claims and statements. Mr. Crombie replied that Mr. York’s statement was a fair one and then emphasized that Alternative E was the position of the Commonwealth. Mr. York then said that Mr. Snyder had stated that MNA was the Air Force’s preferred alternative at this time. He then stated that it had been indicated that if the Air Force made a convincing argument for MNA, the Commonwealth and US EPA would listen to and possibly allow that to be the alternative selected. He stated that there were two options on the table. Mr. Crombie stated that there was a difference when the Commonwealth says that their position was Alternative E and the milestone must be met. He stated that the Commonwealth would consider the Air Force’s preferred alternative however, it must also be reviewed by the public, and could not violate the dates of the enforceable schedule. Mr. York questioned the panels understanding of the extent to which monitoring was a valuable deliverable to the public. He stated that it was the only deliverable delivered so far, and was possibly the only deliverable ever to be delivered. He stated that one of the reasons the CCA had said that monitoring should be independent of the decision making process was that it was a real deliverable. Mr. York stated that there were a number of fresh water springs that had never been monitored until one round of sampling was done this past summer. He stated that sampling was done only after the citizens of Cataumet attended meetings, argued with the expert hydrologists and scientific advisory panel, who had denied the existence of such fresh water springs. Mr. York stated that the citizens of Cataumet would like to see those samples taken, and asked why it was so difficult, and why that type of sampling had been pushed to the back of the program. Mr. York emphasized that this would be the least expensive deliverable with the highest value to the public. Mr. Snyder replied that the monitoring would be pursued regardless of the decision, with the Air Force’s base wide sampling plan. He stated that the Air Force would improve the data sharing and that information would be made available in a timely fashion. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that he supported Mr. York’s statements that data was necessary for the citizens to make decisions and evaluate what was happening. He stated that he would make a point to go back and make sure that he gets more involved with his people. He stated that the US EPA will work internally as well as with the Air Force to ensure that a good plan be laid out and explained to the citizens. Mr. Crombie agreed with Mr. Ciavattieri’s statement and said that the US EPA would meet with the Commonwealth and respond within a couple of weeks. Mr. Fred Sayles, a Cataumet resident, stated that the panel had established a lack of credibility amongst the citizens by not delivering. He then stated that the maps were not very "good". He stated that there were big changes that could not be predicted based on the present plumes. Mr. Sayles went on to say that according to the maps there were concentrations of TCE that in one year have gone from non detectable to 20 ppb. He stated that he wanted a commitment or a promise, from the Air Force that the monitoring data would be collected, analyzed, and made available on a regular basis. Mr. Snyder stated that the Air Force would make that commitment. Mr. Sayles asked for specific dates as to when that information would be available. Mr. Snyder replied that the Red Brook Harbor wells and three wells along Route 28 were a March sampling effort. He stated that there would be a three week turn around for that data. Mr. Snyder stated that a mechanism describing the data sampling and collection process would be developed and made available to the citizens. Mr. Seaver asked whether the risk assessment would include risks associated with the laws themselves. Mr. Crombie replied that all risk issues within the rules and regulations that governed this project would be included. Mr. Snyder added that in the decision criteria matrix under "Impact Associated with the Uncaptured Portion of the Plume", there was qualitative discussion regarding the socioeconomic impact of the uncaptured portion which gave natural attenuation a lower rating than the active alternatives. Mr. Andy Mattix, a Cataumet resident, asked Mr. Crombie what happened to the funds once damaged has occurred and was quantified. Mr. Crombie replied that there was a development of a Trustee Council and there had been negotiations with the Air Force relative to that charter. He stated that there were a number of pieces involved with natural resource damages. He said that he could not speak to how the money would be divided, however he could say that the intent was to invest heavily in the area of the community where the damages have been done. Mr. Crombie stated that the trustee council would make a number of determinations of how that money would be distributed. Mr. Mattix asked what local representation would be on the council once it was formed. Mr. Crombie replied that it was an open process and there was plenty of room for discussion. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that if natural resource damages were being considered in conjunction with the implementation of a remedy for natural attenuation, the US EPA believed that there should be significant public involvement in working with the trustees and the Air Force to identify appropriate activities for restoration, replacement, or acquisition. He stated that the trustees should be guided by the people most affected. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that this was not a well traveled road, and to get through it everyone needed to work collectively. Mr. Crombie asked Col. John Selstrom whether the Air Force had ever dealt with NRDA in other parts of the country. Col. Selstrom, the Director of Environmental Restoration at AFCEE, replied that the NRDA had been a part of CERCLA since CERCLA was written. He stated that there had not been a lot of activity with the NRDA process through the years. He stated that as the process moves forward, the citizens would be involved in the process. Mr. Fisher stated that the US EPA had said that they would get "real tough" on the Air Force if the deadlines were not met. He then asked whether the US EPA would fine the Air Force if those deadlines were not met, and if so, where would the money to pay the fine come from. Mr. Field asked if the only penalty for not meeting enforceable deadlines were fines, or whether other actions could be taken. Mr. Ciavattieri replied that fines could be involved however it would likely be something more significant. He stated that the Air Force meets with Congress on a regular basis to obtain budgets for their cleanups. He stated that AFCEE was a "big apple" in terms of demonstrating their ability to manage and move through a highly complex world class superfund site. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that more important than fines would be the credibility of AFCEE’s program, which includes the ability to obtain funds, and manage all environmental programs. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that the US EPA would work as diligently as possible. He concluded that this was about getting compliance, getting remedies, getting solutions, and cleaning up. Mr. Phil Goddard, a resident of Monument Beach, stated that he had read that there would be a geographical information system (GIS) designed on computer that would remedy the situation of lost data, and lost wells. He then asked whether the GIS system was working and if not , when it would be available. Mr. Goddard suggested that the information from the GIS system be made available through the internet. Mr. Snyder replied that the GIS system was available at the IRP office and disk copies of information could be provided. He stated that there had been problems with their internet service, however how to make that information more accessible was being evaluated internally. Mr. Goddard encouraged the citizens of Cataumet to look at that information. He then suggested that the data be available at these types of meetings. Mr. Mattix stated that Mr. Snyder had commented in his presentation that Alternative E, as currently proposed, would be pumping and treating water that over it’s lifetime would be approximately 2 ppb total VOCs. He asked whether the 2 ppb was Mr. Snyder’s current estimate. Mr. Snyder replied yes. Mr. Mattix then stated that it seemed absurd to do that because the water was probably of better quality than drinking water through most of the Commonwealth. Mr. Mattix stated that he would support an effort to move the well field back away from Route 28, into the base where it would intercept something more meaningful in terms of contaminants. Mr. Snyder replied that they would be looking for a better layout to get a better return. Mr. Paul Tarausi from MassDEP stated for clarification that despite the fact that the plume itself had concentrations above the MCL, contaminants and clean water from around the area were pumped also. Mr. Tarausi stated that when it gets down to 2 ppb in the air fluent it was just a phenomenon related to the pumping. Mr. Mattix stated that it was inherent to say just in the pumping process, they would never get contaminants out of the ground in concentrations that were alarmingly high regardless of what was being done to get them out of the ground. Mr. Tarausi stated that there would be some higher concentrations in places, and eventually the only way to clean it up would be to pump it and treat it. Mr. Mattix stated that if the contaminants could not be removed from the ground in an efficient way then MNA was the way to go. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that the plume was defined by anything within it that exceeded mcl’s. He stated that the water was not drinkable and the resource was damaged. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that it had been suggested at this meeting that extracting the contaminants in the shortest possible time frame was a more aggressive approach. He went on to say that natural attenuation was a passive method. He stated that he did not discount Mr. Mattix’s statements, however it may not be cost effective and needed to be looked at more closely. Mr. Mattix stated that it was not just a question of what was cost effective, because if more net environmental damage was being done through the cleanup activity then benefit from extraction out of the ground, there was no logic to support that activity. Mr. Crombie stated that the argument made by Mr. Mattix was the same argument made by AFCEE, when they wanted the preferred treatment to be modified. He stated that there was not enough information at the time to quantify a change in position, and their position remained modified Alternative E. Mr. Mattix stated, if as studies moved forward and well field E did not make sense, the US EPA and the Commonwealth would need to be flexible in looking at it. Mr. Crombie replied that they did not want to throw money away, however, at the same time they have to keep on schedule. Mr. Ciavattieri stated that the US EPA had received legitimate criticism for not keeping the public involved and updated on what was happening throughout the negotiations. He stated that there now was the potential for the process to develop a design of a system, as well as an analysis of a possible alternative. Mr. Ciavattieri then requested that Mr. York, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Seaver, work with the US EPA, AFCEE, and their community relations staff, to set out a time table or agenda for meetings to keep everyone up to speed and involved. Mr. Seaver stated that a real risk assessment would bring them to a practical solution, a modified E, just enough to satisfy the requirements of the superfund law 21 E to prevent people from being able to due under those laws. He stated that this was one way of determining an effective system. Mr. York stated that Mr. Ciavattieri had just said that he hoped that the people who have been so actively involved, will now become more actively involved. He went on to say that the public felt as though they had done their part. He said that a process was set up in February 1997, and the public’s participation was outlined as well as the Air Force’s role. Mr. York stated that the citizens had done more than their part. He stated that a decision had not been made on November 3, 1997, and someone other than the public "dropped the ball". Mr. York stated that he would like to see a meeting in March 1998, and he would like to see sampling results at that meeting. He stated that actions needed to be taken that reflected an interest in pursuing the concerns of the public. Mr. York stated that he would like to see a plan and schedule of sampling at a meeting in March. Col. Selstrom stated that they were investing in a new data pipeline to remedy the communications problem. He stated that the home page would be improved to help the public monitor the progress. Col. Selstrom stated that his concern with the agreement to disagree made with Mr. Crombie, Mr. Ciavattieri, and AFCEE, was the benefit of spending a lot of money on 2 ppb. He recognized Mr. York’s statement that the process had been started a year ago, however he did not feel that sufficient information had been collected. Mr. York added that he agreed 100 percent with that statement. Col. Selstrom stated that an agreement had been made to proceed with the design of Alternative E. He stated that he was concerned about building a system that was constructable, efficient, effective, and minimized ecological impact. He stated that MNA was not a "do nothing" alternative but rather a commitment to monitor and provide information. Col. Selstrom agreed that the laboratory data was the deliverable because it was the public’s insurance policy that what AFCEE had said would happen, actually was what happened. He went on to say that if what they said would happen, was not what happened, then there was an obligation to remedy the situation. Mr. Goddard stated that in the past it appeared that everyone was rushing around to find a system that would do it all overnight. The brakes were subsequently put on that idea (the 60 percent design) and in affect had cost them a year. He stated that he was concerned that on one hand they wanted to hurry up and do it, and on the other hand they wanted to slow down because more data was needed to make the appropriate decision between the alternatives. Mr. Goddard stated that he advocated the straight line approach, and asked that the communication with the public be continuous, and decisions be made on sound environmental science and regional management techniques, not to placate the public. Col. Selstrom reiterated that this was something that had not been done anywhere else in the Country. He stated that a year and a half ago he found that people only looked to the Record of Decision (ROD) to "get things done". He stated that the ROD would only spend money to study. He stated that there was an agreement that the focus needed to be on "getting done". Col. Selstrom stated that his goal was to make this work so it could be exported to other sites across the country. Mr. Goddard stated that his deterrent was that everyone not run around in such a hurried fashion to get a date, that valid information be overlooked. Col. Selstrom stated that he appreciated Mr. Goddard’s statement. Mr. Crombie stated that this project should have schedules. He went on to say that the twenty years ago there were no schedules involved in this project. He stated that a tremendous amount of activity had taken place on this project when schedules where involved. Mr. Crombie stated there was a schedule that would cost the Air Force "X" amount of dollars and had to be put in by a certain date, and if the Air Force did not believe that was correct then there certainly was incentive to demonstrate that they had a better remedy. He stated that if the Air Force proposed a remedy that they thought was better, the public would accept it. Mr. Crombie stated that he did not make any excuses for schedules, the enforceable deadlines, or any type of investment of this project. He stated that there was a time when twenty five million dollars was being spent on this project a year, and currently that number was over sixty million dollars. He stated that this site was large, sophisticated, and required a lot of work. Mr. York asked for a commitment from any of the three representatives at the table, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Crombie, and Mr. Ciavattieri, toward putting a sampling program in action, such as the one mentioned in the letter from the CCA. He then asked, should a commitment be made, what was the time line for this type of sampling program to begin on a regular basis. Mr. Snyder replied yes. He went on to say that they would work on a data dissemination lay out, which would explain the general process involved with a sampling event. He stated that he wanted to start using the GIS system at public meetings to display the data. Mr. Snyder stated that he wanted to submit a plan within the six month time frame that would provide updates on the status of each plume. He also stated that he wanted to provide regular updates and share the data at public meetings. Mr. York said that he wanted a statement from Mr. Crombie and Mr. Ciavattieri about what they intended to push and pursue in terms of the monitoring. Mr. Crombie guaranteed that tonight he would sit down with his staff and say "We want a proposal in two weeks". Mr. Ciavattieri stated that they would come back in two weeks with a proposal of steps that should be taken in terms of a monitoring program. Agenda Item #8. Closing Mr. Field asked how the public could access the meeting minutes. Ms. Mary Meli from OpTech replied that the minutes would be submitted to the local public libraries. Ms. Musgrave added that the minutes were also available on the Web site. Agenda Item #9.Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.
|
