Massachusetts Military Reservation
Mr. Bruce Roy convened the meeting at 7:20 P.M. and stated he would present the strategic plan overview and Mr. Michael Minior, Senior Environmental Engineer at the IRP office would present the technical discussion. Mr. Roy also commented there were a couple from Sandwich in the audience tonight and also a resident of Pocasset. Mr. Roy commented that tonight`s meeting is the fourth in a series of five to accept public comment during the 45 day comment period on the strategic plan. The strategic plan provides an overall strategic direction and guidance for the IRP Program and integrates policy and action. The plan addresses the course of action to respond to the plumes of contamination emanating from MMR. Mr. Roy stated that it talks about the near and long term cleanup goals. There are four major areas of focus which are: a comprehensive plume response plan and schedule, responses to regulator requirements, responses to community needs and organization. The comprehensive plume response plan is in response to concerned citizens, community needs and regulator requirements for a speedy cleanup. In response to community needs, AFCEE/MMR staff have been holding in-depth interviews in all communities. The organization leadership was changed when Deputy Assistant Secretary Tad McCall brought in the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) to augment the Air National Guard (ANG) staff. The major objectives of the plume response plan and schedule are to protect public health and environment and restore community water resources and clean up the drinking water. They will implement and maintain enhanced community involvement. They are in the process of doing that right now with the Joint Process Action Team (PAT) meetings, posterboard sessions, public speaking engagements, interviews and public meetings. Another objective it to meet regulatory requirements and earn and restore public trust and confidence. Mr. Roy commented that the plan reflects the input of the Technical Review and Evaluation Team (TRET) and the Peer Review Team (PRT). The option for each plume will be evaluated, then modeled, optimized and implemented. The key issues in the plan are the new management for the IRP Program under Project Manager Jim Snyder. Another issue is to provide technical assistance for the Senior Management Board (SMB). Long range water supply issues will be addressed. The impact area which is on the northern portion of MMR and used for shooting artillery will be investigated. This area is not part of the IRP program and is an active range used by the Department of Defense (DoD), however because of concerns of additional contamination, there is an on-going investigation at a site called CS-19, to identify the source area and take actions to clean it up. The impact of the plumes on property values for commercial and residential properties will also be considered. Mr. Michael Minior then continued with the technical discussion on the proposed extraction/treatment/reinjection systems. Mr. Minior stated the objective is to design, construct, operate, maintain and monitor the system. Right now they are proceeding to stop the forward progress of FS-12 and to shut off the high concentrations going towards the pond at SD-5. There will be an extensive network of wells to monitor the performance of the system and aquifer response. For SD-5 north, they are proposing fourteen extraction and fourteen reinjection wells at the Base boundary. The construction start date is December 1996 with a system start up date of September 1997. For FS-12, 30 extraction and 30 reinjection wells are proposed with a construction start date of December 1996 and a system start date of October 1997. Mr. Johnson asked if the wells would be along the side of the road on the undeveloped land along Snake Pond? Mr. Minior replied they will be in the area of Camp Good News. Mr. Johnson also asked if the plume was migrating under Snake Pond? Mr. Minior replied there is a potential that a part of it may be under the pond as shown by the models. Mr. Johnson stated he lives right there and is trying to get himself oriented to the depth of the plume. Mr. Johnson asked if the pollution is deeper than the pond? Mr. Minior replied it is and showed a slide of the plume in cross section. Mr. Minior then discussed the pilot-scale systems and explained that the intent is to determine and evaluate efficiency, constructability and applicability for locations as requested by the TRET. Pilot-scale extraction/reinjection systems and pilot-scale recirculating well systems are proposed. Mr. Johnson asked what the ecological impacts were under the previous design.Mr. Minior replied there were draw down of ponds and impacts to sensitive areas so they needed to find another way to contain the plumes. For CS-10 which begins at the old BOMARC missile area and goes down to the shore of Ashumet Pond has been divided into two sections. The eastern lobe is located near the pond and the western lobe is located on Base. They are proposing a pilot-scale pump and treat system for the western lobe in June of 1997. There is presently modeling and evaluation being done on this area. LF-1 has also been divided into two portions, LF-1 south and LF-1 north. A pilot-scale pump and treat system is being proposed with a construction start date of June 1997 and a system start date of March 1998. Mr. Johnson asked where these systems have been used. Mr. Minior replied in Germany near military reservations. He can provide handouts with the information. Mr. Minior stated the Ashumet Valley Plume the pilot-scale extraction/reinjection system has a construction start date of June 1997 with a system start date of May 1998. The phosphorus plume is under review by the 102nd Fighter Wing Environmental Management Office. Mr. Minior explained that a recirculating well system extracts the water at the bottom, forces it up through a column, vaporizes the volatile compounds and the water comes back down and is recirculated into the aquifer. The air then goes up a vacuum to a carbon treatment unit where it is purified before it goes out into the air. Pilot-scale recirculating well systems are proposed for SD-5 South with a construction start date of December 1996 and a system start date of May 1997. For CS-10 East, two systems are proposed with a construction start date of September 1996 and a system start date of December 1996. Mr. Johnson asked if the water is used over and over.Mr. Minior replied that some of the recirculation is good and it is used for containment and creates a good flow path. Mr. Minior stated they also propose recirculating well systems for LF-1 north with a construction start date of December 1996 and a system start date of May 1997. For the Ashumet Valley plume they are proposing a recirculating wells system in addition to a pump and treat system to minimize the impacts on the wetlands and cranberry bogs. This has a construction start date of December 1996 and a system start date of May 1997. Mr. Minior stated that another issue that was not in the original plume response plan was the CS-4 plume. There is presently a pump and treat system located there but it appears there is a plume of EDB below that that has moved further south and is on the arm of the Coonamessett well. The well was shut down in February due to a laboratory mistake. The EDB was in the vicinity of the well but not in the well. As a precautionary measure, wellhead treatment is now being installed and will be operational by July 4, 1996. They propose to characterize the horizontal and vertical extent of the plume and search for the source. Monitoring wells will be installed and a complete baseline risk assessment will be performed. They will then evaluate and develop remedial alternatives. Mr. Minior stated that other activities proposed include long-term groundwater monitoring for the Western Aquafarm plume and the Eastern Briarwood plume. Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) document submittals are due by August 1997 and Records of Decisions submitted by December 1997. A containment system performance test for CS-4 at the Crane Wildlife Area will be run. A reactive wall pilot test is proposed for CS-10. Regional periodic groundwater monitoring will continue and there will be extensive groundwater modeling done for each plume. An inorganic investigation and ecological surveys and sampling are also proposed. Mr. Johnson asked if the carbon company tells how much contaminants are found in the carbon? Mr. Minior replied they have not yet had to change the carbon units. There are trace levels coming in, but nothing going out. There is not a lot of mass of contaminants being extracted. Mr. Johnson also asked how far apart of the carbon beds. Mr. Minior replied it varies from 60 feet to 120 feet apart depending on the plume. Mr. Johnson also asked if they have a complete underwater flow pattern of the lens to show where the water is flowing? Mr. Minior replied that a synoptic water level survey has been done which shows the flow path of the water. Mr. Roy then discussed the community involvement activities that are on-going. Mr. Roy stated there have been four public meetings/public hearings and on Wednesday, June 26, 1996, the final public meeting/hearing will be held at Bourne high School. There is also a site mailing list that people can sign and receive information. Community interviews are also being held and the community involvement plan is being updated. Extensive team and public involvement will be continuing. Mr. Roy stated that written comments can be mailed to: Douglas Karson The close of the public comment period is June 28, 1996. Mr. Roy then asked if there were any public comments or questions. Mr. Johnson asked what the ecological impacts were? Mr. Roy showed a slide and stated that the previous design would have created a three foot drawdown to the pond, disrupted the thermal regime and impacted plants and animals. Mr. Johnson asked if they decrease the surface water of the pond and then discharge back into the pond, wouldn`t one equal the other? Mr. Minior replied that in the 60% design, they were proposing drawdown and discharge of the water at another location. Mr. Johnson also asked if carbon containers put the water back in upstream? Mr. Roy replied not necessarily. Mr. Minior responded that at CS-4, they are not putting the water back at the same point. Mr. Johnson asked if private wells were impacted. Mr. Minior replied that if there was a private well in close proximity to an extraction system, it could potentially dry up that well. There being no other comments or questions, Mr. Roy then stated it was time for the formal public hearing to begin. During the public hearing, all comments will be recorded verbatim and incorporated into the strategic plan and become part of the official record. Mr. Roy stated there will be no direct responses to questions during the public hearing, but they may ask for clarification. Mr. Roy requested that anyone wishing to speak, state their name and Town for the record. The official public hearing opened at 8:16 P.M. There were no comments or testimony. The official public hearing record closed at 8:17 P.M. Mr. Roy stated that written comments can be submitted until June 28, 1996. The meeting adjourned at 8:18 P.M.
|
