Mashpee Town Forum
Agenda Item #1. Opening by Selectmen Nancy Caffyn, Senior Management Board Member: Selectmen Caffyn convened the meeting at 7:10 P.M. She stated that she had hoped that by this time a 100% design would be available, but they are not there so they need to pick up the pieces and move ahead. As a member of the Senior Management Board they asked Mr. McCall for funding for a consultant for the four towns to assist with review and decisions. The Town of Mashpee has hired Mr. Bill Fisher of Woodard and Curran as their consultant and he will advise them on the plume and design and also advise the Peer Review Team and Process Action Team. Agenda Item #2. Comments: Elias McQuaid, Health Agent: Mr. McQuaid stated he felt it was important for the citizens to know who the Board of Health is involved in this situation. He then read excerpts from two letters regarding the clean up process. The first letter dated April 18, 1996, was from Mr. Minior regarding the clean up of the Horseshoe Bend/TriTown Circle area of Mashpee and the reimbursement (in the mount of $5600.00) to the homeowners for hooking up to public water. The Board of Health received the draft agreement to affect the transfer of funds today. The letter also addressed sampling Ashumet and Johns Pond on a regular basis. Mr. Minior offered that the NGB would assume the costs of the testing and the Board of Health would obtain the samples and provide them to the IRP office. Mr. McQuaid stated the Board of Health will take the samples but they will deliver them to the Barnstable County Health & Environmental Dept. to the analysis. The first round of volatile organic compound (VOC) testing in the ponds will commence next week and then will be done every two weeks beginning July 4, 1996. They will sample four locations in Ashumet Pond and eight locations in Johns Pond. The second letter was an example of the inquiries the Board of Health receives in respect to water quality in the Horseshoe Bend/TriTown Circle area from residents, potential buyers and sellers and real estate agents. Mr. McQuaid emphasized that the Board of Health probably receives the most inquiries on this issue and is it important that they have the most up to date information. They encourage further studies on the pond sediments and the mussels. DPW Director Greg Taylor: Mr. Taylor stated he was going to discuss
terminology, history, solutions and sample questions. History: Mr. Taylor stated the plumes were identified in 1978 and in 1980’s in an effort to put technology together to find a solution, the Technical Environmental Affairs Committee (TEAC) meetings were started and held every other month. The next meeting is TEAC #60, which means there have been ten years of meetings for updates and studies. Mr. Taylor stated that the plumes generally move one to one and a half feet per day which means in seven years they spread out and move one half a mile. The Base is at the top of the aquifer and the plumes follow the groundwater. Mr. Taylor stated he has been following the plumes for five years and in the period of 1986 to 1992, the military spent $52 million dollar studying the plumes. He now feels that they are moving into a new agenda and the start of something beneficial with the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) under the management of Jim Snyder. Mr. Taylor also stated the military leases the land on the Base from the State. Solutions: Mr. Taylor stated he feels that the benefit of change in the last week is that the procurement efforts will be changed dramatically. The Air Force has people under contract and there will not be a cumbersome bid period. Sample Questions: Mr. Taylor stated some of the questions that might arise are: there is a concern as to what the cap might be on Jacobs to do work? They need to be able to manage the process of the project and with the change they want to be kept up to date and informed. How can they find field information on a timely basis? Agenda Item #3. Introduction of Plume Containment Plan by Doug Karson, IRP: Mr. Karson welcomed everyone and addressed comments made by Mr. McQuaid and Mr. Taylor in respect to up to date information and stated that is one of the main issues as they move quickly to implementation. In regards to the ponds, Mr. Karson stated there will further recommended actions given tonight by the experts. Mr. Karson stated there are many positive benefits forthcoming of the Air Force being brought into the process. Mr. Karson stated the first mention of additional help was announced two weeks at the Senior Management Board meeting by Mr. Tad McCall. Last week there was a decision made by Mr. McCall to transfer the lead agency control of the IRP over to the Air Force. This decision was made to ensure that additional resources were brought in to enhance the entire Installation Restoration Program including the plume containment project. The existing staff at the IRP will continue to play a major role in the program and the public participation process will continue and may expand. Approximately ten people from AFCEE are here to help coordinate and get up to speed quickly. Mr. Karson stated that Mr. Jim Snyder will be the Remedial Project Manager for this program. There will be a very detailed program tomorrow night at the SMB meeting and the support that will be provided. Mr. Karson then provided a brief summary of the project. He stated that the process goes back to 1993 when citizen groups were formed and put together the Plume Response Plan. The goal of that plan was to stop the flow of the groundwater plumes. Shortly there after, the Department of Defense committed to implementing that plan. In 1995 they awarded the design contract to OpTech. Later in 1995 the Interim Record of Decision (IROD) was signed by the Dept. of Defense (DoD), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection (MA DEP). OpTech was tasked to provide a 60% design on the plume containment project and in January 1996 the design was released and the resulting review raised many concerns with environmental impacts. The National Guard Bureau (NGB) established various working groups to review and make recommendations. They include the Hydrological/Water Resources Group; Human Health/Ecological Group; Science Advisory Panel; Joint PATs which consist of the Plume Containment Team (PCT), Program Implementation Team (PIT), the Log Range Water Supply Team (LRWS) , the Peer Review Team and the Community Outreach Group. Some of the critical design issues that were raised from the 60% design were hot spot treatment, leak detention, select location of extraction wells and levels of treatment. Other critical issues are the effects on wetlands and the risks of letting portions of the plume go. They also need to develop a monitoring plan for the long term. One key point to remember is that this is an interim action only and a permanent solution needs to be designed and implemented. Mr. Karson stated there is a Senior Management Board (SMB) meeting on May 1, 1996 and a Technical Environmental Affairs Committee (TEAC) on May 22, 1996. Also scheduled are the Joint PAT meetings on May 6, May 8, and May 13, 1996. Agenda Item #4. Human Health Risks by Susan Stines: Ms. Susan Stines stated that the ecological technical team subdivided into three groups; the human health risk assessment group, the ecological risk assessment group and the ecological impacts group. She will give the presentation for the human health group. Ms. Stines explained that the elements of risk assessment are exposure assessment, the toxicity assessment and risk characterization. There has to be exposure to have risk and Ms. Stines stated that if people are connected to water supply and not exposed to wellwater, there is no exposure and therefore no risk. There needs to be a complete exposure pathway which is the source, transport, exposure point, exposure route and the receptor. Ms. Stines stated they assumed that humans can be exposed through residential use of groundwater and through the use of surface water bodies for recreational swimming. For exposure assumptions, they assumed that a resident drinks, showers, cooks, etc. with the maximum concentration of groundwater for 350 days per year for 30 years. They assumed a swimmer swims for either 7 days per year or 30 days per year for 30 years, for 2.6 hours each time and that they ingested 50 ml. per hour. The swimmer was also assumed to be totally submerged and that the inhalation risk is assumed to be equal to dermal risk. The bottom line for human health risk is above the US EPA target risk range of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000. The bottom line for a swimmer’s risk assuming 7 days per year exposure is below the US EPA target risk range, except for those surface bodies that could receive discharge from FS-12. For a 30 days per year exposure, the only additional risk to swimmers is due to TCE in CS-10 which potential may be discharging to Ashumet Pond. Actual samples from surface water and sediments do not show risks to swimmers and plume contaminants have not been detected in fish. Mr. Wood of Horseshoe Bend Way stated he doesn’t want assumptions, he wants facts. Ms. Stines replied she is confident in her assumptions, they assessed the maximum risks and when she says there is no risk, she is confident. Selectmen Caffyn commented there are plumes going into the Ponds. Mr. Karson responded the SD-5 does discharge into Johns Pond and it is not certain if CS-10 is discharging into Ashumet Pond. The wells detected no solvents. However, that is an issue that will be looked into further. Mr. Edward Baker of Pirates Cove questioned the risk assessments? Ms. Stines replied they were based on the remedial investigations and data gap field work. Selectmen Caffyn than asked Ms. Stines about her background. Ms. Stines replied she works for Oakridge National Laboratory, Hazwrap. She has a bachelors degree and a masters degree in biology and has been a risk assessor for four years. Mr. Delagala asked if they took an average
risk of the plumes. Agenda Item #5. Ecological Risk presented by Patti Tyler: Ms. Tyler stated she is an aquatic biologist and an ecological risk assessor with the US EPA. She has worked for the Agency for over five years and for the past several months she has been reviewing the ecological risk assessments for these plumes. Ms. Tyler has a bachelors degree and a masters degree in science and botany. Ms. Tyler stated that tonight she would give a brief synopsis on CS-10, SD-5 and Eastern Briarwood. An ecological risk assessment is the process that evaluates the potential that adverse ecological impacts may occur as a result of exposure to plume contaminants. Adverse ecological impacts evaluates exposure to other species besides humans, such as fish, shellfish, plants, animals and birds. They will evaluate risks from the contaminants and also from the remedy. Ms. Tyler stated that in order for exposure to occur, a complete exposure pathway must be present. The ecological receptors are exposed either directly to surface waters that receive groundwater discharge or through the consumption of prey that have been exposed directly. Assumptions used in ecological risk assessments for CS-10 was a predictive level screening assessment that assumed the maximum concentrations that were in the groundwater plume would be discharged directly to Ashumet Pond, which was the worse case scenario. For SD-5 and Eastern Briarwood sediments and surface waters were collected at Ashumet Pond, Johns Ponds, the cranberry bog north of the pond and in the Quashnet River. For the predictive level assessment there was no comparison to background. When looking at the prediction from CS-10 there was no dilution assumed and no partitioning of contaminants at the groundwater/sediment interface. When looking at the ecological risk that would occur to fish eating birds and mammals, for example the osprey, they assumed that it only got food from the impacted ponds and that the contaminants were 100% available. Ms. Tyler stated that the bottom line for ecological risks is not as clear cut as for human health risk and there is a high degree of uncertainty because it appears the inorganics (heavy metals) are primarily driving any potential for ecological risks, but through the Team’s review there are a lot of questions on the data. The bottom line with respect to SD-5 and Eastern Briarwood, the were no plume contaminants detected in the pond surface waters. There were low levels of metals detected in the sediments that may pose a potential risk to those organisms living in the sediment. With respect to CS-10 and since it is not known if it is discharging into Ashumet Pond, they took the maximum concentrations and multiplied them by dilution factors to look at the future potential for ecological risk. In terms of uncertainties and recommendations, with looking at the no action risk of letting some of the plume go the risks were primarily driven by metals. There is a potential, but a high degree of uncertainty. They recommend to resample a subset of monitoring wells to determine metal concentration, to survey the catfish to evaluate whether papilloma occurrence is pond-specific and long term monitoring. Bob Sherman, Town of Mashpee Conservation
Agent asked what “no action” means? Deidre Greenlish, Mashpee Water Commissioner
asked Ms. Tyler to explain “no comparison to background”. Mr. Wood stated there is some confusion on
whether CS-10 is entering Ashumet Pond. Mr. Peralta stated it is so close, they would hate to say it isn’t, so they’ve assumed the worse case for their risk assessment. Ms. Tyler stated that from the sediment and surface water samples that have been taken from that pond, there are no detects of plume contaminants. Mr. Delagala asked if age was a factor in
their assessment? Mr. Sherman asked if they tested for mercury Ms. Greenlish asked about fish and mussels. Agenda Item #6A. Hydrological Recommendations by Dr. Richard Peralta: Dr. Peralta stated the task of his team was to reach consensus on the 95% design pumping strategy for the seven plumes. They needed to look at the Interim Record of Decision (IROD) which defined what the MMR was to be doing to address the plumes. They were supposed to contain seven plumes and capture them at the toes and treat the water and dispose of it. At this point they are considering only injection, no longer surface discharge. Other goals of the IROD were to reduce human health risks, protect uncontaminated water, reduce ecological impacts and reduce time for aquifer restoration which were conflicting goals. The 60% design that OpTech developed was driven by the goal to contain the plume entirely and to capture them at the toe. The plumes were larger than originally thought and also in or near wetlands so to capture the plume totally at their toes (which were close to the wetlands), there would have been ecological impacts. The technical teams could not endorse full implementation of the 60% design and the decision makers must weigh the trade-offs caused by conflicting IROD goals. The technical recommendations are as follows: SD-5 plume: -To design a capture system for the northern
portion of the plume (and preserve flowpaths of nearby plumes) CS-10 (east): -Test (pilot) recirculation well technology
north of Ashumet Pond (if site suitable) Eastern Briarwood: -Continue monitoring to ensure unacceptable risk does not develop Agenda Item #6B. Associated Ecological Impacts/Monitoring by Dr. Joyce Dickerman: Dr. Dickerman stated she is the lead of the ecological impact team and their concern is not with the contaminants but with what happens to the ecology from treatment. She is an aquatic ecologist, has worked in wetlands, has a Doctorate and does environmental impact assessment. She has done remediation actions for the DoD, Dept. of Energy, National Parks Service, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The task of her team was to evaluate the 60% containment plan and they did a quick assessment and found there were significant impacts associated with pumping and treating that amount of water close to wetlands. The Mashpee resources potentially impacted were Ashumet Pond, Johns Pond, Quashnet River, Mashpee and Wakeby Ponds, Mashpee River, three certified vernal pools and cranberry bogs. Since the 60 % design (which was 100% containment) has been put off, the design criteria now includes minimizing the impacts to the aquatic resources. For FS-12, in the 60% design there were predictions of a three foot drawdown, at this time with the redesign and containment, there is only a half foot drawdown proposed and that is not seen as a significant impact to that system as it normally sees a foot and a half water fluctuation each year. The potential ecological impacts under the 60% design were growth of invasive species, loss of habitat, altered availability of nutrients, enhanced release of contaminants and an altered thermal regime. The will now develop the ecological monitoring plan which will focus on potential ecological effects of altering hydrology and water quality. It will have a 3-phased approach. Phase 1: -Design data collection protocols and data
management Phase 2: -Incorporate lessons learned Phase 3: -Refine monitoring approach They will develop a plan of action for each ecosystem type and they will establish a time table based on species life cycles and engineering design. Site specific monitoring plans are being developed for Ashumet Pond, wetland northwest of Ashumet Pond, the vernal pool northwest of Ashumet Pond and the uppermost reaches of the Quashnet River. Dr. Dickerman stated they also identified two case studies, one in Tom’s River , N.J. and the other at Mary Dunn Pond in Hyannis. They have hired the people who developed the monitoring people in N.J. as a consultant. Mr. Wood asked if there was any projection on
the maximum gallons of water per day that will be pumped Mr. Wood also asked how many gallons per day per pump would be pumped? Dr. Peralta stated he was not involved in the design process and asked if anyone from OpTech would state what was now being considered for flow rates. There was no one there at that time but someone will get back to him with an answer. Mr. Sherman stated he was glad to see that a
lot of monitoring would be done but he asked who makes the decision as to when a
particular change is needed and what input does the local community have in sharing that
decision? Mr. Sherman also asked as the Conservation
Agent, who would be a liaison for him? Mr. Greg Taylor commented on Mr. Wood’s
questions of flow rates, that OpTech’s flow rate on CS-10 was 2100 gallons a minute.
He stated it may be less than that now but that was the figure given for CS-10. Mr. Taylor then stated that OpTech was hired over a year ago for a fee over two million dollars to provide a containment plan and that has not been done. He said that there were a lot of areas where they needed more information and they were provided extra money to do a plan to fill in the information gaps. In January the 60% plan was submitted and that plan is no longer valid, nor is it being used. Some of the information is being used. He further stated that the group of people who critiqued the plan are a group of individuals who in their best effort in five weeks tried to review as much work that was done in over a year by design professionals who were hired to provide this project and who have no background in this type of work that he is aware of. Other than being hydrologists, they have not done a plume containment anywhere near this scope. The gentlemen who were provided to do the study of which he is part of one ancillary group, are also individuals who have never done a containment plan. He stated he is looking forward to working with AFCEE to get the project going. He also stated that legally there is no input related to the value of property in Mashpee and the loss of value. This needs to be addressed in the containment of a spill. The community needs to come to grasp with this and the people in charge need to move ahead with diligence. Dr. Peralta commented that the TRET team, hydro group has many years of experience in dealing with groundwater contamination and clean ups. He is a professor at Utah State College of Engineering where he teaches groundwater at the doctoral level and has developed dozens of pumping strategies for large regions. Selectman Caffyn asked why there wasn’t a comprehensive plan for human health and could there be more plumes not yet discovered ? Ms. Stines responded that all public water supplies are monitored and they will continue to monitor all surface water bodies. As far as potential for plumes not yet identified, she knows there has been extensive record searches at MMR and she is confident they have done their best to evaluate what is available to them. Selectman Caffyn also commented that two years they had hoped for a process action team to study health issues to make people feel comfortable. She feels there should be a recommendation for a study group for the public and also for real estate values. Ms. Stines suggested they contact the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry as it is their task for health studies. It is not the task of the superfund program. Ms. Stines also stated there is a cancer study done by Boston University which she will be reviewing. Mr. Baker commented in support of financial
impacts, he hopes that the people of Mashpee realize the basic catalyst for the
introduction of the water district tax is the contamination that emanates from the Base.
He lives in an area not affected by the plume and still gets the tax burden. Mr. Baker
also asked if a recirculating well could be used at SD-5? Mr. Taylor commented that a part of SD-5 is
heading under Johns Pond and the whole plume is not being contained and is heading towards
a zone two of the Mashpee Water District. Mr. Baker also asked if there would be total
clean up? Dr. Peralta showed a cross section of the volatiles and stated that if they capture the plume upgradient he would expect the part that goes on to become degraded and said he would not worry. OpTech is tasked to design a pumping strategy to capture what is moving down. Mr. Baker stated he wants the entire plume contained and they should apply technology to the maximum levels and why couldn’t they install a fence with a pump and treat system or a line of recirculating wells where the plume hits Johns Pond and south of it as well. Dr. Peralta stated that was not within the scope of what they could address but his comments are for the representatives of the government to consider. Mr. Baker stated that if the Base wasn’t there, he would have clean water. They created the problem and should it solve it to the point there is clean water again. Ms. Stines commented that the recommendations
that the hydrological team have been put forth and they did not recommend a recirculating
well at this site because it has not been proven to be effective and therefore it was
proposed for the southeast lobe of CS-10. They are not saying that is nothing is going to
be done, they are saying at this point, the hydrological team is not comfortable making a
recommendation. Mr. Baker also asked on the risk assessment
evaluation if there was a compilation of joint effects? Mr. Fisher, Consultant for the Town of Mashpee
commented that they put a challenge to the design team to address FS-12 and still mitigate
any impacts caused by the plume, he asked if they could use the same process for CS-10 and
has that been considered? Mr. Minior, manager of the clean up program stated that what they heard tonight was a presentation of a comfort level, what the technical teams saw based on information available and that was the northern portion of SD-5 and FS-12. In their recommendation report is a whole list of items and a schedule will be put together based on that list. As Mr. DeVillars requested, by May 15, there will be an overall schedule and you will see a complete picture of how this will progress and what the timelines are. Mr. Bacigalupi showed on the plume map of an area that was determined by the EPA to be no risk, the original MassDEP plan did state that the plume would underflow Johns Pond and head due south. Since he has been involved with the plume containment team, they have requested that the whole area be monitored for any movement that the plumes are coming to that side. A week ago, Mr. Minior presented a plan to put in a recirculating well to test the clean up without drawing down Johns Pond. Mr. Bacigalupi also stated there had been one hit of contamination of VOC’s in Johns Pond but nothing in Ashumet Pond. The plume on one side of the pond is 40 feet deeper than the aquifer and that become a critical action. He demanded that monitoring be done along the shore of the Ashumet Pond to make sure if anything comes up there it will be captured and he was assured with the plan developed that will be done. His concern now is that with AFCEE coming on board they may not get fast forward movement, and there will be delays. He doesn’t agree with Mr. Taylor’s assessment of AFCEE being here. He thinks the time has come to put holes in the ground and start pumping water and start cleaning it up. There was a question from the audience on
monitoring Child’s River? Agenda Item #7. What’s Ahead: Selectmen Caffyn noted there is a Senior
Management Board Meeting, Wednesday, May 1, 7:00 P.M. and Agenda Item #8. Concluding Remarks and Adjournment: Selectmen Caffyn noted that Mr. Karson’s phone number is on the agenda and please contact him if there are any questions. Deidre Greenlish commented she greatly
appreciates how articulate the presenters were and wished it was several years ago before
the 60% design. She stated she knows intellectually that it is safe for her daughter and
grandson to move near Johns Pond, but emotionally she is not there yet. She’s had no
reason to be optimistic in ten years and she wonders why OpTech is still involved. There being no other discussion, Selectmen Caffyn adjourned the meeting at 9:50 P.M.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
