SD-5 South Decision
Public Meeting
Barnstable County Fairgrounds
Falmouth, MA
December 15, 1997, 6:00 P.M.

Agenda Item #1. Welcome and Introductions, Agenda Review, The Process - Pat Field, facilitator, Consensus Building Institute

Mr. Field convened the meeting at 6:05 P.M. and thanked everyone for coming. He then introduced himself and the Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), Mr. Pinaud of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Mr. Marchessault of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Mr. Snyder of the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) and the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE).

Mr. Field then asked that all the attendees sign the sign-in sheet at the back of the room. He told the group that there would be time for questions and answers following the presentation and asked that those people with questions stand, speak loudly, and state their name and any affiliated organization.

Mr. Field reviewed the agenda which he said included the introduction piece, the announcement of the decision, and a question and answer period. He added that, following the conclusion of the meeting, people were welcome to stay, look at the posterboards, and ask questions.

Mr. Field then explained how the process worked. He said that several alternatives had been developed last spring by Jacobs Engineering Group (the prime contractor for the IRP), the RPMs, the citizen teams, and the Technical Review and Evaluation Team (TRET). Once the alternatives were developed, they were narrowed down and a fact sheet had gone out to the public. Several public meetings had been held about the different alternatives and there had been a public comment period which had ended several weeks ago. At that time, the RPMs along with their managers at the different agencies, had gotten together to negotiate a decision, had finalized that decision last week, and had worked on developing the public presentation to be given today.

Agenda Item #2. The Storm Drain 5 (SD-5) South Plume Response Decision - Jim Snyder, Remedial Project Manager, AFCEE/MMR

Mr. Snyder introduced himself. He then stated that alternative E was the selected alternative for the SD-5 South plume. He said that alternative E used recirculating wells to be located in the body of the plume and along Hooppole Road. He then showed a map of the selected alternative and pointed out the locations of the recirculating wells.

Mr. Snyder then said that alternative E provided the best balance for the decision criteria and this was what was sought during this process. He said that alternative E provided the best balance because it would reduce contaminant mass fairly quickly because of the recirculating wells in the body of the plume. It would also reduce the mass flowing into or under Johns Pond. Alternative E would also expedite aquifer restoration in the area due to the in-plume work as opposed to waiting for the plume to all flow toward a system on Hooppole Road. Among the alternatives, alternative E would best minimize neighborhood construction and operational impacts and would also best minimize the hydrologic impacts.

Mr. Snyder went on to say that recirculating well technology had been evaluated over the last year mainly for hydrologic impact concerns. He said that the technology would basically leave the water table undisturbed. He also said that the recirculating wells could be constructed to be installed in workable-sized subsurface vaults. The only thing on the roadway would be the manhole access covers and there would not be any pipelines as with an extraction treatment reinjection (ETR) system.

Mr. Snyder then said that the expedited part of the system was along Hooppole Road. He explained that the plume was migrating toward this area, going into or under Johns Pond in varying degrees. The sooner the concentrations could be lowered in that front part of the plume, the better it would be for those impacts downgradient. Getting to Hooppole Road in the near future would mean the reduction of contaminant mass in that part of the plume before it reaches Johns Pond. It was hoped that the actual construction of the Hooppole Road wells could be done in the fall of 1998. He added that construction in that area during the peak summer season would be avoided.

Mr. Snyder then showed a slide comparing alternative E to the other alternatives which had been considered. He said that all of the alternatives were roughly in the same ballpark in terms of mass capture. He stated that the capital cost for alternative E was $9.1 million and that the life cycle cost was $25.5 million. Mr. Snyder then turned the presentation over to Mr. Pinaud.

Agenda Item #3. Data Gap Analysis - Len Pinaud, Remedial Project Manager, MassDEP

Mr. Pinaud introduced himself and stated that he would be speaking about the data gap analysis that the Air Force would have to do in order to implement the selected alternative. He said that the data gap analysis dealt with three separate areas of the plume. One area was the investigation from the SD-5 North treatment system to the "elbow" of the SD-5 South plume. The second area was the investigation of the body of the plume in the Briarwood area. The third was the completion of the Ashumet and Johns Pond Underflow Study which included the area on the southeast side of Johns Pond.

Mr. Pinaud explained that there weren’t very many wells in the first investigation area and so an investigation was needed there in order to determine what was coming to the system. The purpose of the investigation here would be to identify contaminant concentrations in this area. The information from this investigation would be used to further determine restoration time of the plume - that is, how long the plume will travel and how long it would take to flush. This information would be used to determine if further remedial actions were needed in this area.

Mr. Pinaud then said that the second area of investigation, the body of the plume, from the elbow of the plume to Johns Pond, was the area for the engineering evaluation in order to design and build the system. This information would be used for well placement and screenings.

Mr. Pinaud said that information gathered from the third area of investigation, the Ashumet/Johns Pond Underflow Study, would be used for a better understanding of the interaction between the plume and Johns Pond. This portion of the data gap analysis would also include further investigatory activities on the southeast portion of Johns Pond in order to determine if further remedial action was necessary there.

Mr. Pinaud then turned the presentation over to Mr. Marchessault.

Agenda Item #4. Ecological Studies/Next Steps - Paul Marchessault, Remedial Project Manager, EPA

Mr. Marchessault introduced himself and said that he would be speaking about the ecological studies that had been performed to date and the next steps to be taken.

Mr. Marchessault stated that an ecological baseline survey had been done in Ashumet and Johns Ponds. Both chemical and water quality data had been studied. He said that the vegetation in and around the ponds, the plankton and the bottom dwellers had also been observed. He also said that the SD-5 North system had begun operating in August of 1997 and additional sampling had been done since then until October.

Mr. Marchessault then said that testing had also been done to determine the interaction of the plume with Johns Pond and to ensure that the remedial system, when installed, would have no adverse effects. Studies to date had shown no solvents detected in the surface water of the pond. Past studies, from 1993 and 1994, had detected papillomas (tumors) on some of the fish. He said that in January 1998, the TRET would convene with the fisheries experts to determine what additional work, if any, was necessary.

Mr. Marchessault went on to discuss the next steps. He said that AFCEE would be submitting an Execution Plan to EPA and MassDEP in February 1998. Data gap work would begin in the spring of 1998. Construction in the Hooppole Road area would commence in the fall of 1998 and the enforceable milestone for full system startup would be June 22, 1999. He added that there would be no construction work ongoing during the peak summer season in the Briarwood area.

Mr. Marchessault then stated that there would be periodic public information updates as the Execution Plan and the data gap work were further developed. This would include the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) citizen teams such as the Joint Process Action Team (JPAT) as well as neighborhood meetings. Work would be done with the neighborhoods to resolve any design access issues.

Agenda Item #5. Questions & Answers

Mr. Field stated that it was now time to hear questions and/or comments from the audience. He reminded any speakers to identify themselves, their town, and their organization.

Juan Bacigalupi, a member of the JPAT and Mashpee resident, said that Mr. Pinaud had mentioned that SD-5 North to the elbow would be looked at. Mr. Bacigalupi then said that most of the data on the layout of SD-5 South, however, was quite dated. There had been very little data collection and the well placement had been skewed to one side, mostly east of the actual plume. He said that there were very few monitoring wells in the northern portion of the highest concentration of the plume. As such, it would be wise not to just do engineering borings in the SD-5 southern portion, south of the elbow, but to basically verify. He said that his guess was that, between SD-5 North and the northern limits of Briarwood where the first well was (a Mashpee water district well, he believed), the pollution levels were probably going to be below maximum contaminant level (MCL) by now. The last time that well had been sampled, in 1994 or 1993, the samples had been just barely above MCL. He said that it may turn out that the northernmost recirc well did not need to be there.

Mr. Bacigalupi went on to say that on the Hooppole Road side, the data had been somewhat variable. He said that there had been some hits above MCL going further towards his house, at Monitoring Well 565 (MW 565). He said that it was right on the limit and that the southern limit of the SD-5 footprint was known. A good layout would have to be verified before any advanced engineering was done. He said that he would urge that more data be collected on the exact locations of the plume, including other non-plumes like Western Aquafarm and petroleum fuels storage areas (PFSAs). He said that there were still some contaminants from these around and it would be best to ensure that they be picked up at the same time, without impacting on the clean-up of the last portion, and thereby reinstating property’s owners values. He said that this would be highly recommended. Mr. Bacigalupi then stated that his hope was that there would be more footprinting work done, not just engineering work.

Mr. Marchessault replied that in the last couple of months, a technical memorandum had been done which had involved the sampling of a lot of wells. He then showed a slide of the monitoring well sampling locations at SD-5 South and pointed out the wells which were above MCLs and the outline of the plume. He said that there had been exceedences at 526B, 524B and C, 548 and 522. He said that these wells had been sampled in the most recent sampling program.

Mr. Bacigalupi said that he was talking about the footprint. He pointed out the water district well and said that from there north there was no clue what was there. He also said that most of the wells were on the southern half of the footprint. His concern was that the footprint may actually have a different shape and really felt that the footprint needed to be verified. He then asked if the highest level had been at Wiley Park at 524. Mr. Marchessault replied that he would look for that information.

Mr. Field asked if there were any other comments or questions to be addressed while Mr. Marchessault was looking for the information to answer Mr. Bacigalupi’s question.

Ted Lewis of the Briarwood neighborhood in Mashpee, said that, under the current thinking, there were five wells being considered. He asked for the approximate location of the well on Wheeler Road and was told that all of the wells would be in the streets. He then asked if it was correct that the wells were in the 30 x 30 foot range of construction. Mr. Snyder replied that that was not correct. He said that had been changed. There were now going to be much smaller vaults which could stay in the roadway.

Mr. Lewis said that he knew that there had been concerns about a 30 x 30 foot vault and asked what the approximate size of the vault would then be. Mr. Marchessault replied that the most recent information indicated that it would be about a 10 x 10 foot vault, all underground.

Mr. Lewis said that these were the kinds of things that people had to know. He then asked again where, approximately, on Wheeler Road the well would be located. Mr. Snyder pointed out the circles or ellipses on the slide of the SD-5 South plume conceptual well layout and said that there was a lot of flexibility as to the ultimate locations of the wells. If access problems should arise, there would still be flexibility to move a well location to anywhere within the circle.

Mr. Lewis then asked about the locations of the other wells. He said that he was bringing this up because of the two tent meetings. He said that the board of directors of Briarwood needed to have these answers because this was what the people wanted to know.

Mr. Snyder replied that at the Wiley Park location, the well would be in the roadway, as was the case with the well near Hillside and Hooppole.

Mr. Lewis then asked if the well just south of Hillside and Hooppole would also be in the roadway or if it would be in the state boat landing. Mr. Pinaud replied that the state boat ramp could be used, but this was still undetermined. Mr. Marchessault added that that was why the general areas for consideration had been circled. Mr. Lewis said that the reason that he was bringing this up was obvious. He said that the well might be in the boat landing, it might not - therefore there might be construction problems and there might not. There might be shut down of the boat ramp and there might not. Mr. Marchessault reminded Mr. Lewis that one of the issues that had been brought up was that there would not be any construction during the peak summer months.

Mr. Pinaud stated that the intent was to keep the public informed as the design progressed so that people would know where the wells would be located and they would have a chance to provide feedback. Mr. Lewis asked if that would be accomplished through neighborhood meetings similar to those that had been held previously. Mr. Pinaud said that he would have to let the Public Information Team answer that.

Mr. Snyder stated that as the work on the data gap analysis began on the best location for the wells and the screening depths, the Air Force would also be going to the homeowners’ associations to discuss the best stretches of road and other problems that may come up.

Mr. Lewis then asked Mr. Snyder about his level of confidence in the use of recirculating wells in this area and the efficiency of recirculating well technology. Mr. Snyder replied that he was confident, that there had been recirculating well pilot tests going on over the last year at the other two plumes and that a panel had looked at recirculating wells. He said that it was a good application for recirculating wells to accomplish the goals which had been set at SD-5 South. He stated that the goal was not 100% capture, but to knock down the concentrations before the plume left the area.

At this point, Mr. Marchessault was able to respond to the question Mr. Bacigalupi has asked earlier. He said that at 522D, along Ashumet Pond the level had been 43.4 parts per billion (ppb) for trichloroethylene (TCE); at 524B, 43 ppb; at 548B, 22 ppb; and at 524C, 18 ppb. Mr. Bacigalupi asked when the tests had been done. Mr. Marchessault replied that they had been done this past summer.

Mr. Lewis asked if it should be assumed that testing would go on between now and the time of implementation such that clean up wells would be located at other points, if necessary. Mr. Snyder replied that that was where the data gap work came in. If it was found that there was a lot more of the plume north of Briarwood where there wasn’t much data - that would change some concepts. If it was discovered that a lot of the plume was underrunning Johns Pond - that may change the approach as well. Mr. Lewis asked if this information would be given to the public before decisions were made. Mr. Snyder replied that was correct. Mr. Lewis said that his concerns came from recent discussions about other things that have been going on which may not be called SD-5 South, but may be called something else - there was still only one way in and one way out.

Mr. Bacigalupi stated that the town of Mashpee was planning to resurface Hooppole Road in the near future, within the next one or two fiscal years. He said that any major construction would impact on that work. He said that state funds would be used for the project and added that it wouldn’t make any sense for the town to lay pavement and then have the Air Force come in and dig up pavement. He said that even if the vaults being installed were only 10 x 10 feet, a 15 x 15 or 20 x 20 foot hole would have to be dug to accommodate them. He said that the road should be brought back up to the standards of a government road. Mr. Pinaud replied that it was clear that work would need to be done with Greg Taylor and the Mashpee Public Works. Mr. Snyder joked that if the state’s project got there first, the state would have to pay for remediation (big laughter).

Mr. Taurasi of MassDEP had a question for Mr. Snyder. He first stated that mass capture for the recommended alternative was at 62%. He then asked if that mass capture figure had been updated to include the Hooppole Road wells to be constructed in the fall of 1998. Mr. Snyder replied that the figure had not been updated and that the mass capture figure would improve at that time.

Schuyler Wires of Johns Pond asked if the testing in the southeast area of the pond would be done using existing wells. Mr. Marchessault pointed to the area where the testing would be done. He said that some wells had already been installed there as part of the Ashumet/Johns Pond investigation.

Ms. Brand of CH2M Hill stated that decision fact sheets were available at this meeting. She said that the fact sheets would be mailed out to all of the residents of Briarwood and other areas around Ashumet Pond. She added that the responsiveness summary would be in the libraries tomorrow and that copies would also be mailed to those who had commented.

Mr. Bacigalupi had another question. He proposed a scenario where a homeowner, who was an abutter to an area where a well would be installed, had major objections to having a well near his house, even though it would be on a town-owned right of way. He then asked how the public relations people for the Air Force would handle such a situation. Mr. Snyder replied that there were some access variabilities. Wells could be moved within a general zone and the goals of this alternative would be met. He said that it was hoped that within that stretch an abutter would be found who would allow access. Mr. Bacigalupi asked what would happen "if not". Mr. Snyder replied that there would then have to be a discussion about any changes that would have to be made - if access for part of the design could not be obtained, then the whole final design would be impacted.

Mr. Lewis then made a request on behalf of the board of directors of the Briarwood Association. He asked that AFCEE and the regulators stay in contact with the board as decisions were made on the specifics of the selected alternative design. In this way the board would have the opportunity to invite those residents in the most affected areas to participate in the process. This would make things go more smoothly for all concerned. Mr. Lewis said that this was a formal request. He added that the more informed the people were, the more easily things would go.

Mr. Field then reminded everyone that the panel members would be available after the meeting to answer any questions. He thanked everyone for coming and adjourned the meeting at 6:40 P.M.