Public Briefing on the Remedy
Agenda Item #1. Welcome, Agenda Review, Ground rules Mr. Field thanked everyone for coming and convened the meeting at 6:00 P.M. He said that the agenda was brief and would include a discussion by the Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) about the Land Fill-1 (LF-1) decision. This would be followed by a Question and Answer period. Mr. Field explained that during the Question and Answer period a microphone would be provided for those with questions and comments. He also asked that people identify themselves and their town and/or organization before speaking. Agenda Item #2. The LF-1 Contingent Agreement - Paul Marchessault, US EPA Mr. Marchessault introduced himself to the audience. He said that what had been agreed to at this point was a contingent agreement to follow three separate simultaneous tracks - 1) AFCEE would proceed with the design and construction of an Extraction, Treatment and Reinjection (ETR) system on or around route 28. 2) AFCEE would be looking at Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) for the entire LF-1 plume and 3) a Natural Resources Damages Assessment (NRDA) would have to be prepared. Mr. Marchessault went on to say that as part of the agreement, the details of these three pieces would be outlined in the Draft Execution Plan to be submitted by the Air Force, EPA, and MassDEP on December 15, 1997. He also pointed out that the fact that AFCEE would be going along three different tracks would not change any of the enforceable milestones currently in effect. These milestones were the submittal of the Execution Plan by December 15, 1997 and the treatment system startup by September, 1999. Mr. Marchessault said that the other factors to be considered as part of the remedy were: Further investigation and fate and transport modeling would have to be performed on the eastern portion of the plume, east of route 28; Bourne wells 2 and 5, located between routes 28 and 28A would be replaced; Homes in the path of the plume, currently on private wells, would be hooked up to municipal water; The Air Force would do an investigation of the homes in the Scraggy Neck area as all of those homes were on private wells. The Air Force would investigate to be sure that none of those wells were being impacted by the plume. If they were, however, provisions would be made to hook those homes up to town water; The EPA, the Air Force and MassDEP would be working with realtors and local homeowners regarding issues of private property liability. Agenda Item #3. The Active Remedial Systems - Len Pinaud, MassDEP Mr. Pinaud introduced himself and stated that he would be talking about the active remedial system portion of the decision. He showed a map of the area and pointed out routes 28 and 28A and explained that there would be no active remediation system installed west of this area. He also pointed out Bourne wells 2 and 5 on the map. Mr. Pinaud explained that there were two different types of remedial ETR systems under consideration. One was a modified version of alternative D which used an axial ETR system, the other a modified version of alternative E which used a perpendicular, cross-gradient pump and treat system. He then showed a conceptual layout for alternative E. He explained that this included strictly an extraction fence on route 28 and a reinjection fence just downgradient of the extraction fence, also close to route 28. He said that this did not include anything west or east of route 28. Mr. Pinaud also said that further investigation may indicate a need for in-plume work east of route 28. He said what was meant by that was that there were data gaps in the eastern portion of the plume and those data gaps needed to be filled in - this would be done by conducting an investigation in the area. If the results of this investigation were to indicate a need for action in this area, then action would be implemented. Mr. Pinaud then showed a layout for modified alternative D and explained that it was a modification of what was in the matrix. He said that the modified D version shown could be modified even more. He said that it was uncertain how well the cross-gradient extraction and reinjection fence was going to work. He also said that the alternative included axial fences which were oriented in the direction of groundwater flow with reinjection to the north and south of the plume. Modifications of alternative D from what was seen in the matrix was that there was nothing located on the western side of the plume and there was nothing in the upper concentration area of the plume. Mr. Pinaud showed a slide of comparisons of the LF-1 alternatives. The information on the slide included figures for pumping rates, mass capture for 20 years and 50 years, capital costs, yearly operation and maintenance costs, and twenty year life cycle costs. Mr. Pinaud said that alternative E1 had been suggested by the Joint Process Action Team (JPAT) and included an axial extraction well near the source area. He also said that E2 included a fence on route 28 plus cross-gradient recirculating wells near the source area. Mr. Pinaud stated that each of the active remedial systems would reduce contaminant mass in the eastern portion of the plume and would expedite aquifer restoration and protection of Bourne wells 2 and 5. He said that the systems would minimize construction and operation impacts on neighborhoods and would meet ecological and hydrological thresholds as well. Regarding potential impacts, Mr. Pinaud said that alternative D modified had a reinjection fence which may disturb a sensitive ecological area. He said more work had to done to determine if that could be mitigated. Alternative E, by virtue of the fact that it would be installed either in the median or on either side of the roadway, had some construction safety problems. Agenda Item #4. Monitored Natural Attenuation - Jim Snyder, AFCEE Mr. Snyder stated that the Air Force was proposing a contingent alternative for LF-1 which included monitored natural attenuation (MNA) for the body of the plume. Mr. Snyder defined MNA as a strategy of allowing natural processes to reduce contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels. MNA involves physical, chemical, and biological processes which act to reduce the mass, toxicity, and mobility of subsurface contamination. Mr. Snyder then said that there were protocols established by both the EPA and the Air Force which document whether natural attenuation was actually occurring and what the processes were occurring at the site. Mr. Snyder also said that the fate and transport modeling would help predict what the outcome would be over periods of time - 10, 20, 30 years and out - for both the active systems and MNA. Mr. Snyder went on to say that sampling and monitoring had been going on for some time at LF-1. He said that a preliminary look at the data showed reductions from the initial higher levels. He said it all needed to be pulled together and looked at comprehensively for the plume and all the contaminants. He said that right now there were no really high levels in the plume, they were in the 40 parts per billion (ppb) range. Some initial investigation confirmed that there wasn’t anything much different from that. Mr. Snyder said that the low contamination levels in LF-1 made it prudent for the MNA process as opposed to the high capital and operation and maintenance costs of the pump and treat systems. He said that natural attenuation would still be protective of human health and the environment. They had come to this conclusion because they had gone to the decision criteria matrix and done a risk assessment and looked at the human and ecological receptors. As long as people would be put on public water supply and the Bourne wells were replaced, it was believed that natural attenuation would indeed be protective of human health and the environment. Mr. Snyder said that as an understandable and agreeable justification for MNA was being developed, they would be looking at the overall environmental benefits of an active system as opposed to natural attenuation. He said that it was the Air Force’s responsibility to operate this on a dual track. They had to proceed with the design of the active system while working on the MNA effort. He went on to say that it would have to be demonstrated that there were decreasing trends in regard to contamination and that there were some active natural processes occurring. Those natural processes would have to be identified. It would also need to be determined how these processes were expected to behave in the future based on how they had behaved in the past. Then, predictions of degradation of contaminant levels would have to be made based on the fate and transport modeling. If MNA were to be selected and agreed to, performance monitoring would be required as would be the case if an active system were selected. Mr. Snyder said that the schedule for this would be laid out in the Draft Execution Plan due in December. He said that it would be best to come to this answer as soon as possible because they were proceeding with the design of an active system simultaneously. Financially it was in their best interest to choose one or the other track promptly. Mr. Snyder stated that the Air Force was still in negotiation with the Natural Resources Damages Assessment process. This was why there was no final decision on this night. He said they were anticipating that within the next two weeks they would be able to define what they were going to do in the Natural Resources assessment process. Mr. Snyder explained that that process was to look at the affected natural resources - groundwater, surface waters, other marine environments. He said that there were trustees for these resources, either state or federal, such as the National Oceanographic Administration. He said that the various trustees would soon be operating as a Trustee Council and would be looking at this entire process to determine the injury to the resource and its effects. Ultimately they would arrive at a financial determination of the loss and/or damage to the resource - a groundwater assessment. The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs of the Commonwealth would manage those funds for projects that would help to deal with that affected resource. Mr. Snyder said that over the next two weeks the agencies would continue to meet to finalize how the contingent part of the agreement would be worded. Until that time, there would be no decision fact sheet or responsiveness summary. He said that the final decision had not yet been made. Mr. Field stated that it was time for questions and comments from the audience. Questions and Answers: Q: Haydon Coggeshall, Town of Bourne: Mr. Coggeshall said that he was concerned because the RPMs had not come up with enough answers. He said that he was extremely disappointed. He asked where they would choose to go - alternative E, E1, E2, D, or D1? Which pump and treat alternative would they choose? And would it be one of those or would it be nothing, which was natural attenuation. He went on to say that if the village of Cataumet and the citizens of the community were going to have enough knowledge to make up their minds, they hadn’t gotten it tonight. He asked Mr. Snyder how they were supposed to go from here. A: Mr. Snyder replied that the public comment period had revealed that the public felt that if there were going to be remediation activities, they should stay at route 28 or east of it. There were still a couple of possibilities of how to do that and do a design process. He said that even if they had gone with an active alternative tonight, they may not have been real specific because that flexibility on the best approach to work in that area between the base boundaries and highway 28 was the kind of flexibility they would like to maintain throughout the design process. If they were to do work in that undisturbed land, on base property, or on route 28 - all of that would be part of the design flexibility, to cut it off in that general area. Q: Mr. Coggeshall said that he realized that. However, he said it seemed that the options offered were D, D1, D2, E, E1, E2 which were relatively extensive or natural attenuation which was nothing. He asked why there was no middle ground. A: Mr. Snyder replied that there was a middle ground potential. He said that going through the fate and transport modeling for the natural attenuation could very well lead to the conclusion that the best solution would be to do some pumping toward the middle part of the plume and to let the rest of the plume attenuate. Q: Dick Prince, Bourne: Mr. Prince said that it had been indicated that Bourne wells 2 and 5 would be replaced and that they were looking to replenish the aquifer. He said that he hoped they were considering the hydrologic implications on wells 2 and 5 when considering the amount pumped. A: Mr. Snyder said that when they had run the models for how effective alternative E and the other alternatives were, they’d had the Bourne wells pumping at assumed rates and had looked at what the affect on the fences would have been if they were pumping at full capacity. He also said that if an active route were chosen and those wells could be protected, perhaps they would not have to be replaced. Q: Melinda McCarra, Bourne: Ms. McCarra asked what the time frame would be if they were to choose an active system. She also said that getting information under natural attenuation seemed like a long term process. She asked if there were guidelines available to diagnose how much damage had been or would be done. A: Mr. Marchessault replied that the current schedule required that if the Air Force were to install a system it would have to be operating by September of 1999. He said that there were guidelines on monitored natural attenuation which had just come out from the EPA in September of 1997. Q: Ms. McCarra asked how long the study would be. A: Mr. Snyder said that the current goal was around six months, but that he would have a firmer schedule later. He said that they were proceeding both with a natural attenuation evaluation and with the design for the active system. He said they were going both tracks simultaneously so it would benefit them to get that in as soon as possible. Mr. Field said that he’d like to clarify what had just been discussed. He said that there were two tracks and that there was an enforceable milestone for the active system track where there was a system start-up date of September 1999. He said that was in place, enforceable, and required. He also said that sometime before that, and as soon as possible, the Air Force could come back to the regulators, the stakeholders and the public and present information to support a natural attenuation track decision. If that were the case, that would be done pretty quickly. Q: Ms. McCarra said that it seemed they might be putting the brakes on "number 1" until they finished "number 2" and asked if that would just be never-ending. A: Mr. Marchessault replied that that couldn’t be done. He said that when the Execution Plan came out on December 15 it would lay out two tracks - one where the Air Force would proceed with design of a system or one where they would do their justification for monitored natural attenuation. Whichever track was followed, the Air Force would still have to meet that December 1999 date. He said it was up to the Air Force to get the information out as soon as possible. Mr. Field added that the idea that had been put forth in the negotiations was the word "parallel", meaning not one after the other, but simultaneously. Q: Mr. Coggeshall said that with a well fence the citizens of Cataumet would have about eight to eight and a half years before all of Cataumet would be free of having a plume beneath it. He said that with natural attenuation it would be 30 years according to Foothills Engineering. If they were to choose the natural attenuation route, what were they then telling the citizens of Cataumet? They had gone through four years of anger, frustration and battles and the natural attenuation choice would be a "kick in the teeth". He asked why this choice could be justified to the citizens of Cataumet. A: Mr. Snyder replied that they look at the feasibility of natural attenuation. He said that there were very low contaminant levels there and if the modeling showed that the whole thing may attenuate roughly the same as it would take for pumping the entire plume, the Air Force would then look at the environmental benefit to pumping. He said that he agreed that the flush time underneath Cataumet would be extended as opposed to expedited and that would be taken into consideration. He said that the other part was the Natural Resources process - dollars spent for remediation may get the contaminants out from under the properties in Cataumet but it wouldn’t really get them usable aquifer any faster. He said that the Natural Resources damage process funded the resource trustees. The loss of groundwater could be compensated for by additional public water connections even in plume-free areas in the town of Bourne. Q: Mr. Coggeshall stated that Mr. Snyder had said that under the natural attenuation alternative there might be public water hookups on Scraggy Neck. Mr. Coggeshall said that he didn’t think that would be viable. A: Mr. Snyder said that Scraggy Neck would be in the path for hookups for either alternatives. Q: Mr. Coggeshall asked that the public process be explained again - when, what and how it was going to happen and whether the public would have any input on the alternatives before the decision was made. A: Mr. Marchessault replied that there would be significant input as the process evolved and as AFCEE released information on natural attenuation vs. the design of the active system. He said that he couldn’t provide exact dates but that all of the information would be presented to the JPAT and the Senior Management Board (SMB). He said that there would be many meetings before the final decision was made. Q: Mr. Coggeshall said that input was not then closed as normally it would have been on this day. He asked if that was correct. A: Mr. Marchessault said that it was correct because they were following a dual track. He also said that even though they were looking at a dual track, it may not be one or the other, it could end up that the preferred remedy was part of an active system and part natural attenuation. Q: Mr. Coggeshall asked for clarification that there would indeed be more meetings in the village of Cataumet for the public to discuss more alternatives and the final decision before it was made. A: Mr. Marchessault agreed that was the case. Q: Phil Goddard, Monument Beach: Mr. Goddard asked if he had understood correctly that there was a cost savings from natural attenuation and that some of that money might be applied to the Natural Resources Damage Assessment process which might entail finding new water supplies. A: Mr. Snyder replied that basically this was related to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and that it had not yet been over utilized but was going to be used here. He explained that a Superfund action that was going to restore the aquifer and do the job in a very short time would more than likely result in a very low NRDA. Conversely, if no action was taken it would result in a higher NRDA, so the resources would be out of service for a longer period of time. He said that it wasn’t so much that the dollars for remediation would go straight to the resource trustee as much as that loss of service and its value would go up under natural attenuation. The resource trustees could use that money for additional water or any other aspect that would improve the resource usability or availability. Q: Bill Locke, Cataumet: Mr. Locke asked if a press release would be made available so that the public would know what was being said at this point in time. He said that usually a document was available that could be brought home. He also said he understood why such a document wasn’t available at the moment but asked if there would be one available fairly quickly. A: Mr. Snyder said that there would be a document available soon. He said that they were negotiating with people in Boston and San Antonio up until 5:30 this afternoon . . . Q: Mr. Locke said that there were a lot of people anticipating some kind of public information from this meeting. Mr. Field concluded that there would be a press release put out as soon as possible. In about two weeks, there would be a final agreement and along with that a fact sheet, a press release and responses to comments. Mr. Snyder agreed that Mr. Field’s conclusion was correct. Mr. Field then reminded that audience that the panel members would be available for one-on-one questions and conversation after the meeting. Q: Mr. Coggeshall referred to the issue of the damages and the possible money involved in with that. He asked if that was a kind of "carrot" being held out before them. He said he was concerned how that money could be spent, what it could be spent on, how much it might be, and when it might happen. He said that Bourne had a problem with the federal government in that it hasn’t been the greatest neighbor. He said he didn’t want to hear more promises about something. He asked if the money could be used to help with an ongoing lengthy search and development of water resources. He said that all four communities were in trouble in that way. Mr. Coggeshall asked if there were restrictions on the money and what the amount might be. A: Mr. Snyder said that the process itself for the monitored natural attenuation tie-in was to try to estimate what that dollar value may be. He said that his understanding was that damages paid for the loss or damage to the aquifer could be used to replace loss of services. Finding water elsewhere on the Cape was within the realm of possibility. A: Mr. Pinaud added that the trustee council was now in the middle of hammering out an agreement between all the different trustee agencies. He thought that they were pretty close to finalizing an agreement. He also said that even with the selected alternative, the active remedial system on route 28, the NRDA process would still happen because there was a piece of that plume that they would be deciding to let naturally attenuate, that piece west of route 28. He said that the NRDA process would still kick in for that piece of the plume. Mr. Pinaud also said that as far as the commonwealth was concerned, the only consensus right now was that a remedial action system would be placed on route 28 although they were not yet sure of the specifics on that. The proposal by the Air Force which included natural attenuation of the whole plume and included the NRDA process was still a proposal that was being discussed. Q: Peter Fisher, Cataumet: Mr. Fisher asked if there was any evaluation on property losses due to the plume. He said that a report stated that real estate in the path of the plume decreased in value by about 15% and that property values would come back up again after remediation. He asked what they expected to happen to property values if the natural attenuation route was taken. He asked if they felt there was a problem with property values. A: Mr. Snyder replied that they had not looked at a study of the property values affected by the plumes so he couldn’t answer the question with any definition. He said that the Natural Resources process looked at publicly owned resources, not private property. He said that he agreed with the concept that a shorter flushing time and remedial system would improve the perception. (Mr. Field asked if this would be a good time to talk about the liability issue.) Mr. Snyder said that one of the issues expressed in the public comment period was the continued concern of property owner liability for pollution on their property. He said that there were policies propagated by EPA and the commonwealth which relieved the private property owners from responsibility for contamination from the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). He said that there would be more of an outreach effort with bankers, the mortgage people and realtors to get that message out so that it would not be an issue when selling property. Q: John Yorke, Cataumet: Mr. York asked if there was a printed time frame schedule available for the LF-1 decision process. A: Mr. Marchessault replied that the only time frames were the enforceable milestones - the submittal of the Execution Plan on December 15, 1997 and the system start-up September, 1999. All other deliverables and interim dates would be part of the Execution Plan. Q: Mr. Yorke asked if there was a schedule for the process generated by the fact that a decision had not been made yet. A: Mr. Snyder said that the hopefully the decision would be finalized in about two weeks. Q: Mr. Yorke asked if there would be a published schedule for that process - for going from here to the point where we were supposed to be now. A: Mr. Snyder said he didn’t believe so. There were negotiations to finish and they would then come out with the fact sheets and the press release on the selected alternative. Q: Mr. Yorke said that they were off schedule now. He asked if there would be additional public comment available during this period and would there be a printed document stating what was happening. A: Ms. Hunter said that the answer was yes. She said that there was a portion of the proposal for which they still had to go through negotiations with the Natural Resource Damages people. She also said that the active system part of the proposal would be allowed to keep moving in the meantime. She asked if Mr. Yorke wanted to know if the public would weigh into this. A: Mr. Yorke said no, he was just asking if the process which she just described would be published somewhere as a document. A: Ms. Musgrave said that there would be a news release tomorrow (11/4/97). Mr. Field asked if there were any further questions. There were none and the meeting adjourned at 6:47 PM.
|
