Meeting Minutes

Agenda Item #1. Introduction

Mr. Sobel, from the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), introduced himself and convened the meeting at 6:37 PM. He then introduced Mr. Steve Witzmann from Jacobs Engineering and Mr. Marty Aker from the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE). Mr. Sobel stated that the purpose of tonight’s meeting is for AFCEE to present its proposed plan to address the Southwest Operable Unit (SWOU) at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). He then reviewed the groundrules and the agenda. Mr. Sobel mentioned that representatives from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Agency (DEP) are present at this meeting, as is Ms. Virginia Valiela, a Falmouth Selectman.

Agenda Item #2. Background of the SWOU Area

Mr. Witzmann stated that he is discussing a proposed plan and no decisions have yet been made on how to address these plumes. He emphasized that no decisions will be made until feedback from the public is received. Mr. Witzmann stated that he will present information about four of the six plumes that are part of the SWOU: Chemical Spill 4 (CS-4), CS-20, CS-21, and Fuel Spill 13 (FS-13). He noted that the remaining two plumes, FS-28 and FS-29, will be addressed under a separate proposed plan.

(See attachment #1, which includes all slides shown during this presentation.)

Contamination in SWOU Area

Mr. Witzmann displayed a map of the SWOU and noted that the CS-4, CS-20, and CS-21 plumes are located primarily within the Crane Wildlife Area. He also pointed out the FS-13 plume, which is located at the rotary, near the airfield water tower.

Mr. Witzmann reported that there are four contaminants of concern related to the CS-4 plume: the two primary contaminants are tetrachloroethylene (PCE), at concentrations up to 61 parts per billion (ppb), and trichloroethylene (TCE), at concentrations up to 19 ppb. He reported that ethylene dibromide (EDB) and 1,1,2,2,-tetra chloroethane have also been detected in the CS-4 plume. Mr. Witzmann explained that PCE and TCE are common solvents. He then reported that the CS-20 plume has concentrations of PCE up to 71 ppb, and the CS-21 plume has concentrations of TCE up to 74 ppb. Mr. Witzmann noted that the drinking water standard for both PCE and TCE is 5 ppb. He stated that the contaminant concentrations at the highest point within these three plumes are about 10 to 15 times the drinking water standard. Mr. Witzmann reported that the contaminants of concern related to FS-13 are 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, with concentrations, respectively, of 240 ppb and 220 ppb.

Mr. Witzmann noted that all of the CS plumes have approximately 40 feet of clean water over them, and the FS-13 plume is located just about at the surface of the water table. He also noted that CS-21 is the largest plume, both in terms of total mass and total volume. Mr. Witzmann reported that the CS-21 plume contains about 2.5 billion gallons of water compared to CS-20, which contains about one billion gallons of water, and CS-4, which contains about 0.5 million gallons of water. He also reported that CS-21 contains approximately 300 pounds of contaminant, which is more than both the CS-4 and CS-20 plumes combined.

Mr. Witzmann stated that currently nobody is being exposed to any of these contaminants. He also noted, however, that the chemical spill plumes could pose unacceptable excess cancer risks to humans exposed over a lifetime. He explained that if a resident’s well was in the center of the plume, stayed there over a lifetime, and the water was used for drinking, cooking, and other residential uses, at that point there would be unacceptable excess cancer risks. He stated that the unacceptable risks posed by FS-13 are a non-cancer hazard. Mr. Witzmann also noted that the ponds are not contaminated by SWOU contaminants, which are at a greater depth.

Mr. Witzmann stated that, based on the contaminants and the risks, the Air Force, the EPA and MassDEP developed two remedial action objectives. One objective is to restore the aquifer to its beneficial uses within a reasonable timeframe. The other objective is to prevent or reduce residential exposure to groundwater contaminants of concern in excess of drinking water standards or risk-based thresholds. While restoration is ongoing the objective also calls for the prevention or reduction of any current or future potential exposures.

Mr. Witzmann remarked that FS-13 is different than the other three plumes for a number of reasons. He explained that the contaminants in the FS-13 plume are naturally degrading. He stated that PCE and TCE, in the aerobic conditions that exist within most of the SWOU, do not degrade – trimethylbenzene does degrade, but slowly. Mr. Witzmann stated that the contaminants in the FS-13 plume are relatively immobile, and reported that the furthest downgradient detection of trimethylbenzene is about 400 feet from the source area. There is a strong reason to believe that these contaminants are not going to spread any further in the future. Mr. Witzmann reiterated that trimethylbenzenes are a non-cancer hazard. He also noted that the FS-13 plume is located on the MMR and is above the CS-10 plume relatively in the groundwater.

Mr. Witzmann stated that three groups of technologies were reviewed in order to develop alternatives to address these chemicals. He noted that in-situ technologies attempt to clean up the contamination underneath the ground. Extraction, treatment, and reinjection (ETR) technology pumps the water to the surface where it is treated, the contaminants are removed, and the water is returned back into the ground. Recirculating well technology involves extracting the water from a well, treating it slightly below-ground, and reinjecting it into the same well. Mr. Witzmann commented that all of these technologies have applications for which they are well suited. In this particular case, however, AFCEE believes that ETR with granular activated carbon (GAC) is the best treatment option.

Mr. Witzmann explained that an ETR system allows one to gain control of the water by bringing it above the ground. He said that after the water leaves the first carbon vessel, it is checked, and then goes through a second carbon vessel. As soon as there is a detection after the first vessel, which would indicate that contamination is making it partway through the system, the carbon in the lead vessel would be replaced. Mr. Witzmann stated that the plumes contain a large volume of water, they are located in a high permeable aquifer, and the contaminants are highly soluble, all of which mean that they move very easily. He stated that these are the types of contaminants for which ETR technologies are most suited. He also noted that within the area of concern, there are no surface water bodies close enough to be affected by pumping from these systems. Mr. Witzmann added that ETR systems have been proven at MMR, specifically on the Storm Drain 5 North (SD-5N) and FS-12 plumes.

Mr. Witzmann reported that the Crane Wildlife Management Area requires the approval of the state legislature in order for a drinking water well to be drilled in that area. He also noted that the base water supply system provides water for the base residents, and that public water supply is regulated by the EPA. Mr. Witzmann further noted that the Falmouth Board of Health is proposing additional regulations.

Agenda Item #3. Proposed Plan for the Cleanup (CS-4, CS-20, CS-21 and FS-13)

Mr. Aker reported that institutional controls will be in place to prevent exposure during the treatment period. He commented that many of the residences downgradient of these plumes have been hooked up to municipal water, which is an example of an institutional control. Mr. Aker reported that to address the CS-4 plume, new extraction wells will be installed along the axis of the plume and the water will be treated at the existing CS-4 treatment plant. He said that a new extraction well system and treatment plant will be constructed for CS-20 and CS-21. He also noted that the extraction wells for both systems will be installed along the axis of the plume. Mr. Aker then reported that the three plumes will undergo a five-year review to evaluate the performance of the treatment systems.

Mr. Aker displayed a map and explained the designs shown for the CS-4, CS-20, and CS-21 plumes are conceptual and do not necessarily show where the wells will be located. He explained that the results of the preliminary modeling determined the present locations of the extraction wells – in the final design, however, those well locations might be elsewhere.

Mr. Aker reported that to address the FS-13 plume, AFCEE is proposing periodic sampling of wells in and downgradient of the plume to monitor the possible degradation of plume contaminants. He noted that the institutional controls for this plume are currently in place. The plume is located on the MMR and the military would not approve any request for a well or pathway created within the vicinity of the FS-13 plume. He added that the FS-13 plume will undergo a five-year review, which will include semiannual or annual groundwater sampling.

Computer Modeling Runs

Mr. Aker showed fate and transport animations for the CS-4, CS-20 and CS-21 plumes. He first showed an animation of the CS-4 and CS-20 plumes at baseline for PCE, which shows the migration of the plumes if left alone. He pointed out that eventually most of the constituents would be addressed due to dispersion or breakdown. He also noted that in aerobic conditions the chlorinated solvents do not breakdown. Mr. Aker reported that the timeline of the animation is 60 years. He then showed a 30-year animation for the CS-4 and CS-20 plumes with the preferred alternative in place. He noted that with the preferred alternative the maximum contaminant levels (MCL) never cross Route 151.

Mr. Aker showed the animation for the TCE baseline scenario. He noted that the CS-4, CS-20 and CS-21 plumes contain TCE. He explained that with this scenario the MCLs do not cross Route 28. Mr. Aker then showed the animation for the TCE plumes with the preferred alternative in place. He noted that with this scenario the plumes reach MCLs much sooner than with other alternatives. He stated that according to the preliminary modeling, the proposed systems appear to be effective.

Mr. Aker then displayed a slide that showed the cleanup times for each plume with both baseline and with the preferred alternative in place.

Agenda Item #4. Community Involvement

Mr. Miller stated that formal comments can be submitted via mail, fax, e-mail or the MMR Web Page (www.mmr.org). He also noted that verbal comments can be made during the July 28, 1999 public hearing scheduled for 6:00 PM at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. Mr. Miller noted that at the public hearing only technical questions and comments will be answered, any decision-based questions will be addressed in the responsiveness summary. He stated that the comment period for the SWOU Proposed Plan will run for 60 days, from June 17, 199 to August 16, 1999, rather than 30 days, due to the complexity of the SWOU plumes.

Mr. Miller explained that a responsiveness summary is a compilation of all the comments received with responses that have been supplied by the Air Force in conjunction with the EPA and DEP. He stated that all formal comments will be acknowledged with a postcard. He also stated that everyone who submits a formal comment will receive a copy of the responsiveness summary after the record of decision (ROD) has been signed.

Mr. Miller reported that once the responsiveness summary is submitted, AFCEE will consider all the formal comments received. He stated that AFCEE will submit a draft ROD for these plumes, including the responsiveness summary, no later than October 5, 1999. The EPA and MassDEP will review AFCEE’s proposed decision and it is expected that a final ROD will be issued in February 2000, at which point AFCEE will propose a schedule for design and construction.

Agenda Item #5. Questions and Answers

Ms. Valiela pointed out that people with questions or comments do not have to wait until the public hearing. She suggested that people call Mr. Karson with questions at 508-968-4678 at any time. Ms. Valiela then asked if it is correct that the CS-21 pumping system will also capture a portion of the FS-29 plume. Mr. Aker replied that this is correct. He explained that FS-29 contains EDB and carbon tetrachloride, and the animations only included PCE and TCE. He stated that had all the constituents been included, the animation would have shown the CS-21 system capturing contamination from the upper portion of the FS-29 plume. Ms. Valiela asked Mr. Aker to clarify what he means by the "upper portion." Mr. Aker pointed to the "upper portion" on the map.

Ms. Valiela commented that although FS-29 is not on tonight’s agenda, when looking at all of the plumes, there is collateral interest. She inquired about the concentrations in the FS-29 plume, and when a cleanup plan will be seen. Mr. Aker replied that the FS-29 plume contains carbon tetrachloride at concentrations of 9 ppb in the leading edge, and the highest concentration of EDB detected is 0.1ppb.

Mr. Lim reported that the EPA and the Air Force recently agreed to a new enforceable schedule for the FS-28 and FS-29 plumes. He explained that the EPA will be reviewing another draft Feasibility Study for FS-28 and FS-29, and will be reviewing a draft proposed plan in October, so an official public comment period on a proposed plan for that portion of the SWOU would not start until mid-January 2000.

Ms. Kiley noted that there are no current risks associated with FS-29, and therefore nobody is being exposed to the contaminated groundwater. She stated that the delay until January for a proposed plan has no effects on public health. She also noted that action is being taken at the leading edge of FS-28 to reduce the potential for exposure for human health.

Ms. Kerry Murphy, a local resident, commented that it is unnerving knowing that there have been water mains laid down Golletta Drive, up Caravel, and back to Sam Turner Road. He stated that he has a petition with 107 signatures for additional municipal hookups on Golletta Drive, Cutter Drive and some of the other neighborhoods. He said that he thinks it is psychologically unnerving to know that there are water mains because they fall in the 500-foot buffer for FS-29 – people wonder why water mains are being installed in that buffer zone. Mr. Murphy stated that he thinks the comment period will be unacceptable to most of the people in this neighborhood. He also mentioned that he would like to see an informational meeting to provide a better understanding of what is going on with the water supply, and he would also like to see a more informative meeting about the FS-29 plume. Ms. Musgrave commented that there is a plan to do that, however, there is no schedule yet. Mr. Murphy reiterated that he does not want to wait until January. He stated that there are other people that will sign the petition, and he said that the fears and the questions are real.

Mr. Kerry Murphy asked if the timelines for the cleanup, as shown in the animations, are based on computer models or actual cleanups at other sites. Mr. Aker replied that the timelines are based on the computer models, with the best possible parameters plugged into it. Mr. Murphy asked if it is correct that there has not been an actual study in which these types of treatments were successful. Mr. Aker replied that this is correct. Mr. Murphy asked for a definition of a "lifetime" of exposure. Mr. Aker defined a lifetime of exposure as drinking two liters of water per day for 70 years.

Mr. Murphy inquired about the proximity of the contaminants to the wells, and the depths of the wells. He noted that his well is drilled to approximately 70 feet. Mr. Aker replied that for the most part there is approximately 50 feet of clean water on top of the plumes. He stated that there is about 70 feet of clean water on top of the CS-21 plume at the leading edge. He also stated that there is at least 50 feet of unsaturated zone on top of the water table.

Mr. Murphy asked if the ETR system will affect the water pressure to existing homes in the area. Mr. Aker replied that the ETR system will not affect the water levels in the wells. He stated that most of the plumes are located within the Crane Wildlife Area and there are not any houses in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Aker reported that AFCEE is proposing to pump 300 gallons per minute (gpm) for CS-4, 500 gpm for CS-20, and 600 to 700 gpm for CS-21. He assured Mr. Murphy that those rates would not affect any wells in the vicinity. Mr. Murphy stated that he has heard comments from residents in the area that their water pressure is down and their bathtubs are colored green. Mr. Aker stated that the green in the bathtubs is due to copper. He explained that the water in this area is very acidic and it eats away at the copper pipes, thereby depositing green on the tubs and sinks.

Mr. Murphy strongly urged that there be an informational meeting. He reiterated that there are a lot of people in the area who he thinks will not want to wait until January for answers. Mr. Sobel asked if Mr. Murphy will be available, if needed, to "spread the word" about an informational meeting. Mr. Murphy replied that he would.

Ms. Foster, the Jacobs Engineering project manager for the SWOU, commented that the values referred to as optimal parameters relate to what happens to a contaminant as it moves through the groundwater on its way from the base to an extraction well. She stated that contaminants can move in the groundwater through groundwater flow, they can get sorbed to a soil particle, come desorbed from that soil particle, and they can naturally degrade through chemical processes, some of which are biological and some which are natural chemical processes. Ms. Foster reported that many published reports from other sites were reviewed – a lot of experience from other sites has been incorporated into the modeling. She stated that ETR systems are very effective at unconfined sand and gravel aquifers as seen here at this site.

Mr. Karson noted that since the previous agreement, the Air Force has committed to additional hookups, including nine homes going further south on Golletta Drive, turning west onto Caravel, and out to Sam Turner Road. He stated that those properties, where the water main crosses in front of the homes, will be eligible for free municipal connection at the expense of the Air Force. Mr. Karson added that it is his understanding that the petition is for additional homes, beyond that, and this will be considered in the coming months.

Mr. Karson reported that for the last four years extensive private well sampling has been conducted in the entire area from Boxberry Hill Road south, bounded by Hatchville Road and Sam Turner Road. He stated that approximately 100 to 150 private wells have been sampled twice a year for four years and no plume-related contaminants have been detected. He commented that the water supply quality in that area for private wells is very good. Mr. Karson also stated that the Air Force is committed to this testing, and anyone living in that area is eligible to have his or her well tested. He suggested that anyone whose well is not currently being tested contact Mr. Miller or himself at 508-968-4678.

Mr. Murphy inquired about the availability of bottled water to interested residents in that neighborhood. Mr. Karson replied that when evaluating the need for bottled water, test results are considered. He stated that plume contaminants are not being seen in private wells in that area – if plume contaminants were being seen, then the provision of bottled water would be a serious consideration. Mr. Karson also stated that consultation with the local boards of health, the regulatory agencies, and the public health agencies, is also a factor in the decision to provide bottled water. He stated that based upon the test results to date, which show that the water is clean, it has been determined that bottled water is not necessary. He emphasized that if this changes, based on the most recent data collected, the Air Force can provide bottled water as an interim measure – the long-term measure would be to replace that water supply if it is indeed impacted and threatened by plume-related contamination.

Mr. Murphy said that he knows there is not a hidden agenda here, however, many people have asked who is doing the testing and whether they should be trusted. Mr. Karson replied that the Air Force provides the funding for the testing. He stated that the scheduling and the sample collection is conducted by the Air Force’s prime consultant, Jacobs Engineering Group, which collects the samples and sends them by Federal Express to Quanterra Laboratory in Florida. This laboratory has been used for more than two years and is certified by the EPA for quality assurance. He explained that the Quanterra Laboratory ultimately provides Jacobs Engineering with a written report that has been certified by its laboratory staff. The report then goes through Jacobs Engineering’s own quality-control process. Mr. Karson remarked that it is a very elaborate process to assure that the testing results are validated and in compliance with regulations.

Agenda Item #6. Adjourn

Mr. Sobel thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting at 7:25 PM.