Massachusetts Military Reservation
Introduction - Mr. Jim Snyder: Mr. Jim Snyder, Project Manager of the Installation Restoration Program/MMR convened the meeting at 7:15 P.M. Mr. Snyder stated that this was the first of five public meetings being held to receive public comments on the draft strategic plan. The draft strategic plan was created in response to a request from the US EPA Region 1 to address the plume containment program. Mr. Snyder stated that comments will be recorded into the record and included in the strategic plan and the responsive summary. The public comment period ends June 28, 1996. Mr. Snyder stated that comments may be sent to Mr. Karson at the IRP office. Mr. Snyder then introduced Mr. Doug Karson. Strategic Plan Overview - Mr. Doug Karson: Mr. Doug Karson, Public Affairs Specialist for the IRP thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and stated there were handouts and fact sheets available. Mr. Karson stated that the final plan is due to be published on July 15, 1996. Mr. Karson than gave a brief summary of the strategic plan. Mr. Karson stated that the strategic plan provides an overall strategic direction and guidance for the IRP Program. The plan integrates the policy and guidelines for the IRP and action. The plan itself talks about near and long term cleanup activities for the entire plumes. The plan focuses on four major areas which include the comprehensive plume response plan and schedule, responses to regulator and community requests, community involvement and organization. On May 1, 1996 there was a change in organization and AFCEE was brought in to manage and augment the program. The objectives of the plan are to protect public heath and environment, to restore community water resources, to implement and maintain enhanced community involvement, to establish and meet regulatory and community commitments and earn and restore public trust and confidence. The plan reflects the input of the Technical Review and Evaluation Team (TRET) and the Peer Review Team. Options for each plume will be evaluated and then modeled, optimized and then implemented. Mr. Karson stated he would then give an overview of each plume. FS-12: For the FS-12 plume, the objectives and activities are to design, construct, operate and monitor an extraction/reinjection system which will contain, capture and remediate the FS-12 plume. The FS-12 plume contains benzene and EDB compounds. The plan proposes to install 30 extraction and 30 reinjection wells. Mr. Karson stated that for the past couple of months, OpTech and their modeling company have been running iterations, pumping scenarios and locating wells to achieve capture as close to 100% as possible without any impact or drawdown to Snake Pond. Monitoring wells to assess performance of the extraction/reinjection system and aquifer response are being outlined. Construction is scheduled to begin December 1996 with a system start up date of October 1997. SD-5 North: SD-5 is a solvent plume located between Ashumet Pond and Johns Pond. Mr. Karson stated that they are proposing to design, construct, operate, maintain and monitor an extraction/treatment/reinjection system for the northern portion at the MMR boundary. Based on recommendation from the TRET, one of the changes from the original concept is that they are now proposing extraction wells at the Base boundary because of the complex hydro-geological area. This is to avoid drawdown of ponds and impacts to the vernal pools and cranberry bogs. The plan proposes to install 14 extraction and 14 reinjection wells and to install monitoring wells to assess the performance of the system and aquifer response. The construction startup date is December 1996 with a system start up date of September 1997. SD-5 South: For SD-5 South, pilot scale recirculating well technology is proposed. Two wells will be constructed to evaluate the efficiency, constructability and applicability for the location. Monitoring wells will be also be installed. The construction start up date is December 1996 with a system start up date of May 1997. CS-10: The CS-10 plume has been divided into two sections, CS-10 East and CS-10 West. Each section has distinct objectives and activities. CS-10 East: For CS-10 East, the objective is to construct an operate two pilot-scale recirculating wells systems for a total of four wells to minimize impacts to the ponds. Monitoring wells will also be installed. A construction start date is proposed for September 1996 with a system start up date of December 1996. CS-10 West: For CS-10 West, a pilot scale extraction/reinjection system is proposed to look at the aquifer and how it reacts. Groundwater modeling to evaluate design needs will be conducted. Monitoring wells are also proposed. The construction start up date is June 1997 with a system start up date of May 1998. LF-1: The LF-1 plume has also been divided into two sections; LF-1 North and LF-1 South. LF-1 North: For LF-1 North, construction and operation of a pilot-scale recirculating well system is proposed with two wells to evaluate the efficiency, constructability and applicability for this location. Monitoring wells are also proposed. A construction start date of December 1996 is proposed with a system start up date of May 1997. LF-1 South: A pilot-scale extraction/reinjection system is proposed for LF-1 south. Groundwater modeling will also be conducted to evaluate design needs. Three extraction and three reinjection wells are proposed as are monitoring wells. The construction start up date is June 1997 with a system start up date of March 1998. Ashumet Valley: The Ashumet Valley plume is a solvent plume and a two phase approach is proposed. First a recirculating well pilot test is proposed and then a pilot-scale extraction/reinjection system. The recirculating well pilot test will have two wells and monitoring wells. The proposed startup date is December 1996 with a system startup date of May 1997. The pilot scale extraction/reinjection system includes groundwater modeling, three extraction and three reinjection wells at the toe of the plume for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Monitoring wells are also proposed. The construction startup date is proposed for June 1997 with a system startup date of May 1998. The phosphorus plume is under review by the 102nd Fighter Wing Environmental Management Office. CS-4 Ethylene Dibromide (EDB): Proposed activities are to fully characterize the size of the EDB plume. The plume has been investigated by ABB environmental services and the EDB detected is above the State standard. The activities proposed are to characterizes the horizontal and vertical extent of the plume, to search for the source, to evaluate and develop remedial alternative and to complete a baseline risk assessment. The field work is to begin in July 1997. A wellhead treatment system at the Coonamessett Well in Falmouth is proposed to be installed by July 4, 1996. This system will be capable of removing EDB or other contaminants from the Coonamessett Well. Other Activities: Mr. Karson stated that other activities scheduled include twelve Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) Document Submittals and all Records of Decisions submitted by December 1997. There were originally 78 sites and 30 of those will drop off through the decision document process and investigation over the years. A containment system performance test for the CS-4 plume is planned. A reactive wall test for CS-10 is proposed. Long-term groundwater monitoring for Western Aquafarm and Eastern Briarwood is proposed. A regional periodic groundwater modeling program will be conducted Basewide in the very near future. An inorganic investigation is proposed. Recommendations from the TRET group includes ecological surveys and sampling are also proposed. Community Involvement Activities: Community activities include public meeting and hearings. Community interviews are being held with personnel from the IRP office. The community relations plan is being updated. There is a site mailing people can sign. Poster board sessions are proposed and they will continue with extensive team and public involvement. Written Comments: Written comments can be sent to: Douglas Karson HQ AFCEE/MMR-PA 322 East Inner Road, Box 41 Otis ANG Base, MA 02542 Telephone (508) 968-4678 Fax (508) 968-4927 E-Mail: dkarson@mafmh.ang.af.mil Mr. Karson stated they have received approximately one dozen comments so far. Mr. Karson then opened the meeting for comments and questions. Public Comments and Questions: Susan Walker, resident of Sandwich and member of the Responsible Environmental Protection for Sandwich asked what is the status of the data gaps of information for FS-12 and when will the gaps be filled. Ms. Walker also asked if there is enough information to go ahead with what is planned to do for FS-12? Ms. Snyder replied there has been mention of data gaps for FS-12. There is a modeling scenario for SD-5 and FS-12. The data shows a containment system and there was consensus from the Joint PAT to proceed with the design. Ms. Walker stated that MassDEP has asked them to rescind the pilot tests due to the data gaps and asked how are they going to respond to DEP? Mr. Snyder replied they are working on a response to the letter and it will have very strong wording based on the comments. Mr. Len Pinaud of MassDEP stated it was unfortunate that the comment had the word "rescind" in it. Mr. Pinaud stated the word should have been "reviewed". The data gaps referred to were geologic data gaps that need to be dealt with but Mr. Pinaud wanted to make it clear that MassDEP supports going ahead with the containment plan for SD-5 and FS-12. However, they do want to see the data gaps taken care of. More geologic borings need to be conducted at SD-5 and FS-12. Ms. Walker stated that the strategic plan calls for a regional water supply for the Base and the four communities. RDX has been found in groundwater in the impact area, how will that effect the current zone 2`s and future zone 2`s? Ms. Walker also asked if there is a schedule for the water supply? Mr. Snyder replied that the regional water supply study is being worked with the Air Staff and they are assessing the MMR contribution and is currently in negotiation. There will be a Site Investigation at CS-19. Two of the four wells have RDX detected below the advisory level. They plan to install additional monitoring wells and do further site investigation to see if there is a plume there or not. Right now, there is no evidence of a plume. Ms. Walker asked that Mr. Karson if they expect 100% capture at FS-12 as stated in his presentation and if the strategic plan so states that? If that isn`t correct, Ms. Walker asked what will happen to the contaminants that are not captured and what the risk would be to people? Ms. Walker stated she does not go along with the wording "as near to 100%" as in the June 5, 1996 revised strategic plan and stated that Secretary McCall`s "undetectable limit" would be more satisfactory. She stated she is interested in clear performance standards and she will make that statement in the public hearing. Ms. Walker also asked if the number of wells had changed in the strategic plan? Mr. Karson replied the change in wells is based on information from OpTech. The 100% is the goal and there have been 14-15 pumping scenarios for FS-12 with different levels of projected containment based on the computer modeling. The last iteration that Mr. Karson was aware of was around 100%. Again, they will have to look at trade offs as discussed with the TRET team to achieve 100% capture which could have ecological impacts such as drawdowns to Snake Pond. Ms. Walker asked if the 100% is firm or is it still being worked on? Mr. Karson replied it is still being worked on. Mr. Snyder stated that the modeling has been done through OpTech for containment and is approaching 100%, however, the modeling is a prediction. Ms. Walker asked for an explanation of carbon filters and the number of filters in the strategic plan and also explain the difference between carbon trains and carbon beds. Mr. Snyder replied that a carbon train is the same as a carbon bed, just different terminology. Dual filters are proposed but there has been a request for a third filter as an additional safety factor. Ms. Walker asked if they knew at this point how much Snake Pond will decrease and what the ecological impact would be? Mr. Karson replied that the risk people from the TRET team will be doing baseline work on the ponds and that will hopefully happen this summer. They want to have a balance to minimize the negative impacts on the ponds. A baseline study is needed so they can model the best scenario to limit drawdown and achieve more significant capture. They will also need a baseline study after the system is up and running. Ms. Walker asked if there had been a decision on using both the pump and treat method and recirculating well for FS-12 as reflected in the minutes? The strategic plan only talks about the extraction/reinjection method. Mr. Karson replied as far as he is aware, the plan calls for extraction/reinjection wells as the treatment scenario. Ms. Walker stated that in the May 15, 1996 Joint PAT meeting minutes it states that 40% of the groundwater going into Snake Pond during the containment process is coming from injection system and she asks if they see this an ecological problem or a human health problem? Mr. Snyder replied that it is definitely not a human health problem. What is coming out of the treatment unit is clean water. The issues of concern are the pH, the oxygen, the temperature. That is why an ecological baseline system is needed to measure the output and to see how it mixes in the groundwater near the ponds. It is an ecological concern. Ms. Walker stated she is interested in the EPA and DoD talks on policy issue of the arms range and asked if they are considering stopping the artillery on the Base and if they are concerned with the groundwater contamination? Mr. Snyder replied there is no word of stopping the arms range. It is a needed asset for defense and meets the operating parameters for active ranges. There has been no discussion on closing the range. Ms. Walker asked when and how the public will be notified of that conclusion? Mr. Snyder replied it will be in the July 15, 1996 submittal. Ms. Walker asked about the benzene hotspot at FS-12 and if it would receive any special treatment and what technology would be evaluated? Mr. Karson replied that the hot spot for FS-12 shows a treatment system along the southern side with no treatment up the center. At one point there was a scenario with treatment up the middle but based on the information it is a more effective system and to not shift the plume towards the pond. Ms. Walker thanked Mr. Karson for his patience. Mr. Karson then asked if anyone else had questions or comments. Dr. Joel Feigenbaum stated he had a follow up comment on the benzene hot spot and felt that Mr. Karson`s response was misleading. The extraction wells are going to be close to the center. Mr. Snyder replied they propose extraction in the center and reinjection on the side. Dr. Feigenbaum asked if they will be close to the hot spots? Mr. Snyder replied they will be towards the center. Dr. Feigenbaum commented that he received a letter from MassDEP also regarding the decision to rescind the approval to go ahead and he wants to advise MassDEP that there is a process of teams and if there is no indication of the bomb shell it could derail the teams. This should have come up at last weeks Joint PAT meeting. Dr. Feigenbaum stated he hopes they will be ready for a detailed report on geologic problems next week. Dr. Feigenbaum asked if they plan to characterize the RDX under the entire impact area and what is plan to systematically monitor the impact area for RDX Mr. Snyder replied they are not prepared to answer that right now. The issue is being worked on. Dr. Feigenbaum asked if monitoring wells would be placed in the impact area? Mr. Snyder replied they will evaluate CS-19. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that out of four wells in the impact area, two contain RDX. If they do not put wells in the impact area, they will not know the pollution in the area. The time has come to clean up the very dangerous area and to see if it is a source of toxins that are polluting the area groundwater and they cannot do that unless they study the area. Mr. Snyder replied that answer is being formulated. Dr. Feigenbaum stated for the record take they should take a hiatus from use of the range. The groundwater is more important than to continuing to practice with WWI weaponry. Dr. Feigenbaum also stated that the strategic plan no longer calls for containment and there is no schedule for the CS-10 source area. That area of Forestdale is highly populated and the schedule does little for remediation. The area still being used and there are thousands of gallons of aviation fuel in the ground and leakage from carriers, tanks and artillery and the area is still a source area. He questions compliance as the area is still being actively polluted. Mr. Karson replied that there is a compliance program on the Base to make sure that they are in compliance with Federal requirements. Dr. Feigenbaum stated he did a spot check and there was oil and gas going down the road into storm drains. Dr. Feigenbaum also asked about the containment system for Snake Pond and also about the status of the negotiations to reimburse the Town of Sandwich the one million dollars for shutting down the Weeks Pond Well? Mr. Karson stated that the issue of Camp Good News is that they are looking for a supply source and cannot use the property. As of today the Base transferred the amount of $324,000 to the Town of Sandwich. The issue of the Weeks Pond well still has not been resolved and they are still in dialogue with the Town of Sandwich Water District. Dr. Feigenbaum asked if that would be resolved at Secretary McCall`s level? Dr. Feigenbaum stated that as a resident of the town of Town of Sandwich his water bill is enormous and he wants the money returned to Town. Mr. Karson replied it is being looked into. Ms. Lynne MacDonald a resident of Sandwich and member of REPS stated she is very concerned and asked what could they tell her of the negotiations of the broken pipeline for FS-12 and what part that plays in the plan. Mr. Karson replied that the pipeline issue is being addressed by DEP. W.R. Grace Company will do the investigation and extraction. The workplan is at MassDEP and Mr. Karson is not sure where it stands in terms of approval and implementation. Mr. Len Pinaud of MassDEP replied that MassDEP has approved the work plan submitted by W.R. Grace and work will start this Wednesday in the Sandwich area and the move to Base and then back to Sandwich in the fall. Ms. MacDonald asked if the pipeline concerns MMR? Mr. Karson replied that the uncertainties could cause additional problems in the investigation process. There were no other questions or comments, the public meeting concluded at 8:18 P.M. Mr. Karson stated he would be the formal hearing officer for the public hearing and all the comments, questions and concerns already raised this evening will be incorporated and addressed in the strategic plan. The plan is being revised on a weekly basis. A copy of the revised plan is available at his office or can be requested. At tonight`s public hearing they will accept oral testimony and written comments. All comments will be transcribed verbatim and will part of future editions of the strategic plan and will be come part of the official record. Tonight during the public hearing portion, they will not be responding but can ask for clarification is needed. Mr. Karson asked anyone speaking to state their name and organization or Town for the record. The official hearing record opened at 8:20 p.m. Ms. Susan Walker, Town of Sandwich and member of the Responsible Environmental Protection for Sandwich (REPS) stated she would like to make a comment concerning #90 in the revised June 5, 1996 version of the strategic plan. The last sentence of the comment by Andrea Papadopolous reads "in particular data gaps exist for SD-5 and FS-12 to such an extent that MassDEP recommends that" and there is nothing further. Ms. Walker stated what the Dept. recommended was that they rescind the go ahead on the project. Ms. Walker stated that this type of oversite cannot happen if they are going to restore the public trust. They have to have the comments in full so that the people can understand them. The meaning has to be in full. Ms. Walker stated in the strategic plan, 4.2.1 Environmental Aspects, it talks about the four towns being within the Base boundary. She would like to see it re-worded to say "that the MMR is within the Towns of Bourne, Sandwich and Mashpee and borders the Town of Falmouth". Ms. Walker also commented on 2.1.2 on FS-12 talks about the monitoring activities. The monitoring should continue longer than monthly sampling for 90 days then quarterly. It should be weekly to begin with for monitoring. She stated she is willing to see their point of view but she needs more information. Jumping so quickly to quarterly monitoring doesn`t seem like a good idea. Ms. Walker commented on the carbon beds and requests three beds so that when they change carbon filters there is always a back up. Ms. Walker commented that the strategic doesn`t address the treatment of plumes other than SD-5 and FS-12 and she feels that needs to be addressed and they need to see containment for the other plumes as soon as possible. Ms. Walker stated that REPS will submit written comments after review of the revised of strategic plan. Dr. Feigenbaum stated he had given one page of comments to Juan and asked if they had been received. Mr. Karson stated they were submitted. Dr. Feigenbaum stated there has been no response to his comments. Mr. Snyder replied they have not done them yet. Mr. Karson replied they will be responded to and they do have them. Dr. Feigenbaum of Sandwich and a member of the Plume Containment Team (PCT), Peer Review Team (PRT) and Alliance for Base Cleanup (ABC) commented that the same design work for FS-12 and SD-5 should continue. Extraction and reinjection fences should be designed with same goals and possibilities of the same trade offs. The resources should be clearly outlined. He also pointed out the inconsistency of not having pilot extraction/reinjection system for eastern lobe of CS-10 which has potential impacts on Ashumet Pond and Johns Pond. He feels it is not consistent with the other plumes. Dr. Feigenbaum feels it is necessary to add pilot systems for eastern lobe of CS-10. They can`t say there will be ecological effects unless they try it He also feels that with what they`ve heard on the efficiency of recirculating wells that is would be an excellent thing to try on the hot spot in CS-10 and he applauds them for that but he doesn`t think it will do the job. Dr. Feigenbaum also stated that no one has explained why an extraction/reinjection system would have a negative impact on the pond and he urges them to consider piloting that system and to do a study of the system. Mr. Karson then asked if there was any other testimony on the strategic plan. There were none. The public hearing concluded and the official record was closed at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Karson stated that comments can still be made and written comments must be submitted by June 28, 1996. The meeting adjourned at 8:32 P.M.
|
