LF-1 Posterboard Session and Public
Meeting
Welcome: The Town of Bourne Selectman Thomas Barlow convened the meeting at 6:35 P.M., and welcomed the attendees to the meeting. He then introduced Mr. Jim Snyder. Mr. Jim Snyder explained the ground water recharge process for developing and evaluating alternatives for the plume cleanup. He stated the purpose of the meeting is to provide explanations of alternatives and get feedback from the community. Mr. Snyder briefly explained the elevations above sea level in the Upper Cape area, mainly the Sagamore Lens. He stated that the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) is on the highest part of the ground water mound, and chemical spills run downhill towards Buzzards Bay. Mr. Snyder displayed a cartoon diagram of the ground water cycle. Precipitation (snow or rain) gets into the soil and saturates the water table. The snow and rain bring contaminants that enter at the water table and recharge into the surface water bodies. Mr. Snyder also described two technologies being looked at: 1. PUMP AND TREAT TECHNOLOGY Mr. Snyder stated that one well draws contaminated water out and one well puts clean water back in. He continued, saying that standard wells will be put in areas of high concentration to extract contaminated water only. A submersible pump pushes water up to a treatment plant and water is filtered through a carbon monitoring system to monitor water that is coming out of the treatment plant to make sure it is clean. Mr. Snyder stated that the carbons used are all organic compounds which are very effective. He also stated that the water is reinjected into areas in which the water is already clean, and the reinjection process is also used to balance the hydraulics for this process. When pumping water out, there are water depressions around the well as when the water is reinjected it tends to mound. 2. RECIRCULATING WELLS Mr. Snyder described this technology by stating that all treatment is done in the well. The water is pulled in at the bottom of the contaminated ground water, pumping it up the well and mixing it with air in the process. It uses all organic compounds that tend to vaporize into the air stream, allowing the water to fall back down. The air with the volatile organic compounds(VOC’s) in it is now taken off to the carbon that is set up for the air stream and it removes the VOC’s from the air stream. Mr. Snyder compared the cross section of this process to a donut. He also stated that looking at data from a pilot test showed that this technology does have some application here. The main interest that it has promise of dealing with sensitive hydrological environments around surface water areas, ponds, and/or harbors, avoiding the issue of salt water/fresh water interface, or altering the flow of how the ponds receive their ground water recharge. Mr. Seaver asked if Landfill 1(LF-1) is still considered a superfund site. Mr. Snyder confirmed that it is considered a superfund site. Mr. Paul Marchessault from the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) included that there would be a five year review of remedial action. He also stated that the wells have only been capped for two years and they are just beginning to collect data. Mr. Snyder explained highlights of the LF-1 plume stating that in the lower area the gold color areas are areas of trichloroethylene, reading 20 parts per billion (PPB). The blue green areas are carbon tetrachloride, exceeding 20 PPB, and the rust color is the trichlorethylene (TCE) where it exceeds 20 PPB. The rest of the general shape of the plume is exceeding 5 PPB which is the maximum contaminant level (MCL) according to the state safe water act. A member of the audience asked how long ago the TCE was tested and how will it affect the area surrounding it. Mr. Miller replied that they installed a boring there and it was sampled about a week ago, the results showed a concentration of TCE slightly over 20 PPB. He also stated that the results caused them to extend the southern portion of the plume. Mr. Seaver asked if the well installed near the base boundary is a separate source. Mr. Miller answered that they haven’t really looked specifically for the source are. Mr. Seaver then stated that TCE was used as a cleaner before, and asked if it could indicate an older plume. Mr. Snyder answered saying that if it was in the landfill as one of the early components it could be why its out here where we also have the TCE concentration. Mr. Seaver then asked what the depth of the plume is. Mr. Miller stated that the depth to the top of the plume is anywhere in the range of 60 - over 100 feet below the water table. Mr. Snyder displayed a cross section for better understanding of the explanation. A member of the audience asked if the areas that aren’t "labeled" are considered clean. Mr. Snyder replied that those areas are clean. Mr. Miller added that they sample at an average of 20 foot intervals once the water table is reached. Mr. Snyder stated that it is normal for the plume as it gets farther from it’s source it gets deeper. A member of the audience asked if all the test wells are numbered, if there locations are known. Mr. Snyder said they are. An audience member expressed his concern about digging a well for himself, near the test wells, and if the water would be safe. Mr. Snyder replied that they could help answer that question if he is in the area where the plume is eight feet below the water table, which typically is considered safe. Mr. Snyder also stated that a standard private well is not going to have a significant draw from the water and definitely will not draw things from 80 - 100 feet up. Mr. Snyder then displayed a cross section of the lower area. A member of the audience asked is the groundwater going down and the plume coming up? Mr. Snyder stated that yes at this point that is the case. The audience member then asked how close it is to the ocean. Mr. Miller pointed to the southern most point of the plume using Route 28A as a reference. An attendee then asked what the depth of that plume is. Mr. Snyder stated that at one point it was about 50 feet from sea level and at another point it was about 130 feet from sea level. Mr. York asked if well # 0082 was sampled in the last round of testing. Mr. Miller stated that it was tested within the past 4-5 weeks. A member of the audience asked if at the present depth is it well below Red Brook Harbor water level? Mr. Snyder stated that at the depth it is at at this point it will resurface further out. He also stated that there is not a lot of data in the salt water/fresh water interface area, there is not much chance of doing anything where the salt water and the fresh water interface. A member of the audience asked why not. Mr. Snyder stated that due to the ease of drilling out there, is one of the main reasons they don’t go off shore much. Mr. Snyder then discussed the process for selecting an alternative, the decision criteria process. Mr. Snyder displayed a visual display of the decision criteria process which showed August 12, 1997 as the beginning of the comment period, ending October 10, 1997. Mr. Snyder stated that the date to announce a decision and respond to comments on November 3, 1997. He also stated that a plan on how to accomplish the selected alternative on December 15, 1997, and the date to start the system on September 15, 1999. Mr. Snyder stated the importance of getting input from the neighborhoods, hearing comments and feedback, and hearing what is important to the community. A member of the audience asked how it was decided that it would take two years for construction. Mr. Snyder stated that schedules were developed based on project experience. He also stated that looking at present construction efforts and what they foresaw as the possible magnitude, they estimated a design construction time frame. A member of the audience then asked if based on that schedule, regardless of which alternative is chosen, will the entire area be "yellow" by 1999. Mr. Snyder replied no, that it was not moving that fast. Mr. Miller stated that they predicted the advancement of the plume when determining the well layouts. Mr. Fisher gave a brief history of cleanup efforts prior to 1993, and expressed concern because he was told at that time, the plume would be contained within 22 months, and that it would not pass through Rt. 28. He stated that Trudy Coxe assured him that the plume would not pass the railroad track when it actually already had. He expressed his skepticism about believing what was being said now. Mr. Snyder replied that now they have data. Mr. Fisher then asked how they know that the entire area won’t be "yellow". Mr. Snyder stated that the maps at the time those statements were made were drawn based on the extent of the investigation, not the extent of the contamination. He then stated that the investigations were not quite as complete as they are today. Mr. Fisher stated that the community is skeptical, and they are not going to believe everything they are being told. Mr. Fisher stated that the community is not represented in this area. He also stated that they would like to preserve the conservation area, and the people of this community are very willing to allow work on these areas. Mr. Fisher stated again that the community is not represented. Mr. Snyder stated that he has heard that before and that is the reason they are there tonight. Mr. Snyder stated that they are here to listen, that is what this process is about. He also stated that they want community thoughts before the decision is made. Mr. Fisher stated that they have been told that the people in Cataumet are selfish and self centered. He stated that the community asked for prioritization in 1993, they felt that the simultaneous plan was not good for anyone. Mr. Fisher then stated that the community is not spoken for by the Feigenbaums, the Kinneys, the Hugus or the Walkers. Mr. Snyder stated that they have spent time with Mr. Seaver and Mr. York and have alternatives that we like and alternatives that they like. Mr. Snyder stated that they are trying to access the public at large, but also more specifically, what this neighborhood and the affected community prefers. A member of the audience asked that now that the plume has been moving out of the base, if nothing were done, what could be expected. Mr. Snyder stated that the plume would follow its general shape It is not going to expand upward, it would continue to run out towards its’ end point, and go toward Buzzards Bay. The impact of that is being assessed. A member of the audience then asked of the source of the contaminant was removed, will it move out? Mr. Snyder stated that that is starting to happen now, the source has been capped for 2 years, and the concentrations are going down. A member of the audience then asked where do the contaminants go? Mr. Snyder stated that it continues to follow its’ path towards Buzzards Bay. A member of the audience stated that all the alternatives are at the end of the plume, and asked why not concentrate on the larger areas that will be the sources of our contamination in the future? Mr. Snyder stated that there are alternatives that look at that. Mr. Miller stated that some of the Alternatives have extraction wells in the areas of highest concentration. Mr. Snyder explained the Decision Criteria Matrix and Schedule. He stated that the threshold criteria protects human health and the environment by assuring that the alternative is in compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARAR’s), which are the federal and state requirements that apply to MMR. Mr. Snyder stated that the primary balancing criteria is used to evaluate alternatives that have passed the basic requirements. Mr. Snyder also stated that the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative will be evaluated, implementability, construction issues, and feedback from acceptance groups will be considered in this step of the process. A member of the audience stated that there is a trust issue, and asked how much confidence they have in the current data, will there be a whole new approach in 6-8 months, and at what point will there be a viable plan that we can all buy into? Mr. Snyder addressed the first question and stated that he has high confidence in the data. The member of the audience then asked for a percentage of confidence in the validity of the data. Mr. Snyder stated 80-90% certainty of understanding on the situation. Mr. Seaver stated that the southern lobe has dramatically changed position, and asked how did that happen? Mr. Snyder stated that the investigation reached those points so they drew the map that way, they didn’t have a data point in between. A member of the audience asked for an estimate to the degree of data for LF-1. Mr. Snyder stated that the plume was studied adequately at this point in the process. He also stated that you can always collect more data, you can never be 100% certain. Mr. York asked why not treat the areas of known concentration. Mr. Snyder stated that they are trying to stop further spread. Mr. Snyder then explained ways to submit written comments. (see attached) A member of the audience then asked what happens to the source and contamination, and how effective is the cap at what depth? Mr. Snyder stated that if the source is not in contact with the water table, and there is no contact from rain coming through because there is a cap on top, basically the source will stop. Mr. Miller stated that it doesn’t go below the source, and the source is above the water table. The audience member then asked about the design of the recirculating well. Mr. Snyder stated that they have been testing the abnormalities that will affect the recirculating wells ability to create the donut affect around the well, and considering that in the Alternatives. Mr. Miller then explained the evaluation criteria used to arrive at the well layouts in the Alternatives. Mr. Miller stated that a computer model is used to simulate and predict how the ground water will behave through the different pumping. Mr. Miller stated that they looked at the amount of the plume that is captured by the different well layouts, and they also looked at sensitive ecological areas, surface water bodies such as Long Pond and cranberry bogs and also surface habitats that come into play when actual construction takes place. He also stated that they also evaluate property access with the different well layouts. Mr. Miller displayed a depiction of the plume, which was updated a few days prior based on the results from samples taken within the last few weeks. He also stated that the wells shown were not all the wells in the plume area, but all the wells that samples were taken from in the past few weeks. Mr. Miller stated that the wells shown, were the wells used to draw the new depiction to be used for comparison to older depiction. Mr. Miller pointed out one of the wells being discussed that is in an area of high levels of TCE, PCE and Carbon Tetrachloride, the well was installed to get more information to bound the southern extent of the plume. A member of the audience asked about wells 40A and C. Mr. Miller stated that they sampled that well and it was also contaminated. Well 39 was sampled and it had 5 PPB of Carbon Tetrachloride. Mr. Miller stated that a well was installed at the leading edge of the southern lobe and the ground water is above MCLs also. Mr. Miller pointed out the well at the most southern point. He also stated that the amount of plume captured is based on the older depiction of the plume. Mr. Miller stated that they allowed this plume to move ahead three years in time before they turned the wells on in the model. Mr. Miller pointed out the location of the Bourne Water wells 2 and 5, using Rt. 28 as a reference point. A member of the audience asked if all the wells are at the same depth. Mr. Miller stated that no, they are different depths. The audience member then asked what that meant. Mr. Miller stated they are at different depths in order to track the plume at different depths. He stated that in the source area, the plume is more shallow than at its’ most western point. Mr. Miller presented five alternatives of well layouts. He stated that Alternative A has a line of recirculating wells along the vicinity of Red Brook Harbor Rd., and another line of recirculating wells in the vicinity of the conservation land, with the main part of the well fence running along Rte. 28A where there are extraction wells on the right hand side and reinjection wells on the left hand side. He displayed a graph showing that in 100 years all of the plume will be processed by this particular well layout. A member of the audience asked for an estimate of the total amount of mass of the contaminates. Mr. Miller stated that the total amount of mass of this plume including TCE, PCE, and carbon tetrachloride was estimated at 280 kilograms based on the old plume depiction, which relates to about 50 gallons. The audience asked if that means there is less than a 55 gallon drum worth of solvent. Mr. Miller stated that that was correct. He stated that the area of highest concentration is still on the base, somewhat near source area, and the highest concentrations are about 50 PPB of any of the contaminates and the drinking water standard is 5 PPB. A member of the audience asked if there is any indication that the sea water will force it up to the surface. Mr. Miller stated that at some point the portion of the plume at the northern lobe will rise up to meet the seawater, we do not know where that point is. Mr. Miller displayed the well layouts for Alternative B. He stated that the wells used in these well fences are all recirculating wells, they are at the leading edges of the plume, and a set of wells were added nearby the area of highest concentration. A member of the audience asked why it is important to put the wells as close to the leading edge of the plume as possible. Mr. Miller stated that it is written in the interim record of decision (IROD) to stop the flow of migration. The audience member then stated that the longer we wait to attack the plume that is upstream, the more chance we have for that plume to migrate down. He asked if it would be more important to protect our water source. Mr. Snyder stated that we need to get through all the Alternatives. A member of the audience asked how many wells will be put at the edge of the plume and how many at the source. Mr. Miller stated that there are 39 different wells. A member of the audience then asked if the different Alternatives would have the same number of wells. Mr. Miller stated that it varies, LF-1 the highest number of wells is about 45-50 extraction wells, and some Alternatives will have as few as 10 extraction wells. A member of the audience asked how noisy the well are. Mr. Miller stated that the extraction well has a pump underground in a vault, so minimal to no noise. Jim Snyder stated that testing is being done and the ones tested were built in above ground sheds that are insulated some, there will only be a man hole cover for access underground where the equipment will be held, and there will be minimal sound. Mr. York asked about the affect of hurricanes on the wells. Mr. Snyder stated that hurricanes will be taken into account and included in the written response. Mr. Seaver asked about uncertainty of recirculating wells, stating that they are in the experimental phase and highly speculative. Mr. Snyder stated that reliability of technology will be considered in the criteria. A member of the audience asked what the smokestack was, and what came out of it. Mr. Snyder stated that in the recirculating wells, clean air will come out, if it is an extraction well, there is just a manhole, there is no "smokestack." Mr. Miller described Alternative C, which has all extraction wells, a set of extraction and reinjection wells in the vicinity of the conservation land, along Rt. 28, and some in plume extraction in the area of the highest concentrations, and this water would be reinjected on base north and south of the plume. A member of the audience asked where the "hot spot" on Rt. 28 would be in two years. Mr. Miller stated that it would probably be about mid way between Rt. 28 and 28A, using a general migration rate of about a foot per day. Mr. Miller stated that Alternative D includes wells at the northern lobe near Red Brook Harbor, there are extraction wells along Rt. 28, well fences are intended to extract the areas of highest concentration. He stated that this is an in plume extraction in areas of highest concentration. Mr. Miller explained Alternative E, stating that there would be a series of extraction and reinjection wells along Rt. 28. A member of the audience asked with this type of a fence along the leading edge how long will it take for contaminates to flush out. Mr. Goydas stated that it will take 7-15 years to flush and degrade that portion of the plume. Mr. Snyder stated that there are two other alternatives, one being Natural Attenuation Alternative, which included modeling, but no extraction or pumping on the plume. Mr. Snyder stated that the other is the no action alternative which is a baseline study, used as a basis of comparison if nothing was done. A member of the audience stated that natural attenuation has been taking place since 1940 or 1950 when that spill began to occur, and asked if there was an estimate on the amount of solvent that was originally generated in that plume, and how much has already been washed out from natural attenuation. Mr. Snyder stated that there are no good estimates. Mr. Miller stated that a lot of it has already been transported out. A member of the audience stated that the alternatives being suggested are very expensive, they are going to be in people’s back yards, a lot of construction will be in place and it’s projected to take 50-70 years for clean-up this 55 gallon spill. The audience member suggested that they take a good hard look at monitoring the water from time to time, check drinking water, and fix contaminated wells as needed, so no one is drinking any water from contaminated wells. A member of the audience compared the amount of contaminates in the water to the amount contributed by recreational boat use. Mr. Seaver stated that the reason most people want to contain the plume at Red Brook Harbor Road is to protect Buzzards Bay. He stated that shellfish do not collect the contaminant, and he does not believe there is a public health threat. He believes that legitimate attempts to clean up will remove the stigmatism. Mr. Marchessault stated that there is a "Good Neighbor Policy" that indicates that even if you are above the plume, that you are in no way liable for any cost associated with that part of the plume. Mr. Seaver then stated that the "Good Neighbor Policy" is helpful but it does not solve the problem. A member of the audience then asked if this site was declassified, who will continue to pay to operate it? Mr. Snyder stated that if the pump continues to operate than it will not be declassified. Mr. Snyder also stated that the financial cost has been built into the budget. A member of the audience asked what could be expected at Red Brook Harbor Road if a well fence is put there? Mr. Snyder stated that the construction would be narrow to maintain the flow of traffic, there would be drill rigs, and excavators trenching vaults. Mr. Ford asked if the full system startup is scheduled for September 1999, won’t that make both of these alternatives moot? Mr. Snyder stated that the efficiency of the alternatives accounts for the 2 year delay time. A member of the audience then asked if nothing is done, we choose to monitor the situation, and something drastically changes, will it take a long time to get up and running, are we going to have to go through this whole process again? Mr. Snyder stated that with this experience behind us, we do have data to date and options to draw from. Mr. Mullennix stated that the community needs to make sure that this problem of contamination does not happen again. A member of the audience asked why with Natural Attenuation, would you continue to study if nothing is going to be done? Paul stated that there is a five year review, the Air Force is required to monitor quarterly instead of annually, if something happens in a two year period we can take action. He also stated that even though the landfills have been capped, there still could be some contaminates released over time, that is why we continue to monitor them. A member of the audience asked why go on testing if nothing is going to be done? Mr. Mullennix responded stating that if nothing is done they should know what they’re leaving behind. Mr. Seaver asked if over time you don’t see any appreciative difference in concentration, if drinking water reaches 5 PPB do you remove it from your list? Mr. Marchessault stated that if there is no difference in concentration. Mr. Snyder stated that there are five year reviews to monitor and document. A member of the audience asked about the comparison of costs of the different alternatives. Mr. Miller stated that the costs have not been compiled yet, however, the fewer number of wells there would be and the fewer number of well locations, the cheaper the alternative. He also stated that he would guess that Alternative E would be the cheapest and Alternative D would be at the top of the range. Mr. Snyder stated that he estimated 15-20 million capital cost. Mr. York asked what the cost means in terms of how effective the Alternative, he asked for a comparison of cost vs. benefit. Mr. Snyder stated that a severe cost can make alternative look unfeasible while a low cost of one that has no chance of construction, can also make that alternative look feasible. He stated that they are all high cost. A member asked if there was a rigid formula for cost benefit analysis. Mr. Snyder stated that no there isn’t. Mr. Seaver made a formal request that the north and south lobe are analyzed separately. Mr. Snyder stated that they will do that. Mr. Ford asked if any consideration has been given to the salt marshes. Mr. Snyder stated that there should be no interaction of contaminates with the salt water marshes. Mr. York stated that the question of contact has not been addressed. He stated that different answers have been given as far as contact is concerned, and he asked that it be kept straight whether contact is being discussed or effect. Mr. Goydas stated that the north lobe is at greater depths and discharges much further seaward. He also stated that the southern lobe may have contact with surface waters but there is likely to be no impact. Mr. Seaver made a suggestion that on the third week of November you go down to Red Brook Harbor and look at the first skim ice and find out where the first plume would be. There being no other comments or questions, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
|
