Storm drain 5 south plume response decision : a fact sheet providing information about the selected cleanup alternative for one of the plumes emanating from the MMR

6 Pages·1997·0.69 MB·English

by  Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (U.S.)

ST
iA^- fe/\ao.3L: 7V
WFRNSENT'DOCUMEN
r UMASS/AMHERSt
MASSACHUSETTS
k.MILITARYRESERVATION
Bisobboibss^aao
December 1997
Storm Drain 5 South Plume Respori^i Decision
A factsheetproviding information about the selected cleanup alternative forone ofthe plumes emanating from the MMR.
AFCEE
will expedite construction of
The purpose of this fact sheet is to describe the
alternative selected by the Air Force Center for recirculating wells along Hooppole Road to
reduce contaminant mass in the plume before
Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), U.S. Envi- it
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the reaches Johns Pond. Expediting the installation of
these recirculating wells will help capture some of
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
the estimated 30 percent ofthe plume mass that will
Protection (DEP) to clean up the Storm Drain 5
flow into and/or under Johns Pond before the
(SD-5) South groundwater plume emanating
scheduled full-system startup in June 1999.
from the Massachusetts Military Reservation.
Words in italics are defined in the glossary at As part of this decision, data gap analysis will be
the end of this fact sheet. They are only completed. Data gap analysis is a study or series of
studies to provide additional details regarding
italicized the first time they are used.
aquifer characteristics and contaminant distribution.
Specifically, for SD-5 South, data gap analysis will
OVERVIEW OF
include:
THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
• Further investigation in the body ofthe plume,
particularly between the existing SD-5 North
After careful consideration of the advantages and
extraction fence and the "elbow" ofthe SD-5
disadvantages of each plume response alternative
South plume. This investigation will identity
and comments received during the public comment
contaminant concentrations, ifany, in this area.
period, the remedialproject managers (RPMs) from
The information will be used to further
AFCEE, EPA, and DEP reached consensus, that
determine restoration time ofthe aquifer and
Alternative E best balances the decision criteria.
whether additional remedial actions are needed
The selected alternative uses recirculating well in this area.
technology to achieve a significant degree of
• Further investigation in the Briarwood residen-
contaminant mass reduction. Recirculating wells
tial area to gather necessary engineering data for
will be installed along Hooppole Road and within
proper well placement and screening.
the body ofthe plume. The selected alternative, as
shown on page 3, is conceptual in nature. • Completion ofthe Ashumet and Johns Pond
Therefore, the exact location and number of wells, Underflow Study to gain a better understanding
and other refinements of the remedial system, will ofthe plume-pond interaction and the move-
be determined by consideration of the following ment ofthe plume, ifany, under Johns Pond to
criteria: the southeast side ofthe pond. The underflow
study will include investigation on the southeast
• Reducing contaminant mass within the plume
side ofJohns Pond. This investigation will
• Reducing the mass ofcontamination that flows determine ifremedial actions are needed on the
into and/or under Johns Pond southeast side ofthe pond.
• Expediting restoration The Air Force will strive to complete these further
investigations before Memorial Day, 1998, in order
• Minimizing neighborhood impacts
to minimize construction activities during the
Maximum engineering flexibility is necessary to summer months. Completion of outstanding data
allow for good design with the most up-to-date gap analysis and initiation ofconstruction will begin
technical information about the plume. after Labor Day, 1998. After the data gap
investigations are completed, the agencies will
determine if the selected alternative protects human In 1997, an extraction, treatment, and reinjection
and ecological health and protects and restores the (ETR) system was installed in the northern part of
aquifer. the SD-5 groundwater plume (as shown on page 3).
As part of this decision, AFCEE, DEP, and EPA The system consists of 10 extraction aMndMR8
reinjection wells located on-base near the
will continue ongoing public involvement efforts.
border and an on-base treatment plant for the
In order to ensure that the public is kept informed
extracted water. The ETR system draws the water
and has an opportunity to provide input on the
out of the ground and removes the solvent
ongoing remedial actions at SD-5 South, the
contamination by running the water through
agencies will provide ongoing involvement with the
activated carbon canisters. The carbon adsorbs, or
affected neighborhoods and towns, the citizen
process action teams, the Senior Management holds onto, the contaminants. Clean water is then
returned to the groundwater by the reinjection wells.
Board (SMB), the Barnstable Science Advisory
The carbon canisters are recycled off-site
Panel (SAP), concerned environmental groups, and
periodically. The system began operation on
the general public. Particular efforts will be made
August 4, 1997.
to involve residents living near and on Johns Pond.
The agencies expect to hold public meetings at least Sampling results from performance monitoring
once in late winter, late spring, and fall of 1998. evaluations indicate that the ETR system for SD-5
A North is cleaning up the plume. Preliminary results
draft execution plan will be issued February 2,
indicate that contaminants have been reduced
1998. This plan will include a schedule ofactivities
downgradient ofthe ETR fences.
and further detail the agreed-upon actions. The
enforceable milestone for full-system startup is June
22, 1999. Interim enforceable milestones also will
be established.
RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
Following are the rationales for the selected • This alternative minimizes construction impacts
alternative: on the neighborhood by reducing intensive
construction due to extensive piping runs that
• Alternative E provides for restoration ofthe
would be required for a traditional ETR system
aquifer in an expedited time frame because of
such as in Alternatives A, B, and D.
the placement of in-plume recirculating wells.
• Alternative E employs recirculating wells in the
• This alternative minimizes hydrological impacts
most effective and appropriate manner by using
due to pumping through the use ofrecirculating
this innovative technology for contaminant mass
wells, thus minimizing overall impacts on the
reduction.
aquifer and adjacent water bodies.
• Alternative E is an aggressive approach to • This alternative is supported by such groups as
the Town ofMashpee, the Joint Process Action
remediation that will achieve mass capture of
Teams, the Massachusetts Division ofFisheries
contaminants similar to all the other
and Wildlife, and the Barnstable County
alternatives.
Science Advisory Panel.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Additional information can be found in the main libraries in Falmouth, Bourne, Sandwich, and Mashpee, and
in the U.S. Coast Guard Library on base.
Information can also be obtained by visiting our website at http://www.mmr.org, by calling the Community
Involvement Office at [phone], or by sending an electronic mail message to:
[email protected]
7
1
^ SD-5 North
System
^//^
N
^fe
&
Moody
^* / /
nS= Fond /
f
SD-5
Plume
4»
'^J«
5iS-
^e.
Askun&f
Pond V
V
^d
te>
Exact location and number of
Jonns
wells are to be determined
Pond
in final design.
Legend
JE JACOBS ENGINEERING
»
5 u.g/L Plume Contour SD-5 South Plume
1 ng/L Plume Contour D Conceptual Layout of
I I
1000
# Selected Alternative
Recirculating Well
Scale in Feet Massachusetts Military Reservation
Capture Zone CapeCod, Massachusetts
8f26ft7 KK File: sd5zone5.cdr Figure
NEXT STEPS
AFCEE will send a letter to the EPA within the Extensive coordination among AFCEE, EPA,
next few weeks outlining the components ofthe DEP, citizen advisory teams, and the affected
decision. communities will continue.
The enforceable milestone for the draft AFCEE, EPA, and DEP encourage residents to
execution plan is February 2, 1998. attend citizen process action team meetings,
become informed and involved with the SD-5
Data gap analysis will begin in the spring of
South cleanup, and sign up on the site mailing
1998. Results will be available to the public.
list to receive updates.
Engineering design ofAlternative E will begin
The public will be notified before any construc-
after the data gap analysis has been completed.
tion activities begin and during key construction
These plans will be available to the public.
activities.
Information updates will be provided to the
The enforceable milestone for full-scale system
public periodically.
startup is June 22, 1999.
AFCEE representatives will meet with neigh-
borhood groups and other community groups
throughout design and construction.
OVERVIEW OF WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
Written comments were received from 13 indi- the comments can be viewed by contacting the IRP
viduals and organizations during the public Community Involvement Office at 508-968-4678.
comment period. Commentors represented the
The responsiveness summary will be mailed to
affected neighborhood, the public-at-large, citizen
everyone who submitted a written comment, as well
advisory teams, local and regional environmental
as members ofcitizen teams. Copies ofthe respon-
organizations, and state and federal agencies.
siveness summary will also be available at the main
Comments were received in favor of all alternatives libraries in Falmouth, Mashpee, Sandwich, and
except Alternative Z, no action. Comments focused Bourne, and at the U.S. Coast Guard Library on
on protecting the health of Johns Pond and base. The responsiveness summary also is available
minimizing impacts to the neighborhood. by calling the IRP Community Involvement Office
at 508-968-4678 or by visiting our website
Responses to all written comments are described in
(http://www.mmr.org)
a separate document, called a responsiveness sum-
mary. The responsiveness summary presents the
comments and provides responses prepared by
AFCEE, EPA, and DEP. The original text of the
comments are part of the public record but are not
included in the responsiveness summary. Copies of
THE DECISION PROCESS
The decision described in this fact sheet was arrived federal and state environmental regulation, but was
at by following an extensive decision process. The tailored to meet the specific needs and interests of
decision process that the remedial project managers the projects and concerns of the community
followed was described in a public document and surrounding the MMR.
fact sheet, and was available for public comment
As outlined in the decision process, a set of alter-
from February 10 to March 10, 1997. A public
natives was selected by the remedial project manag-
meeting was held on February 25, 1997, to discuss
ers to be carried through the decision criteria
the process and take public comments on The
it. matrix. The matrix is a tool designed to enable the
decision process was developed cooperatively by
project managers to compare and evaluate the alter-
AFCEE, EPA, and DEP. It includes requirements of
natives against a broad range ofcriteria.
—
4*
t
°asically, the criteria answer the following ques- Plume Response Decision Document," was
tions about each alternative: summarized in an accompanying fact sheet, and was
presented in several public posterboard sessions,
• Does it meet basic requirements?
public meetings, and citizen team meetings. The
• How well will it work? last set of criteria in the matrix, which answer the
question "Is it acceptable to stakeholders," was
• Is it acceptable to interested parties?
completed after the public comment period ended.
The remedial project managers, in cooperation with
hydrological, ecological, human health, and other Based on the analysis of alternatives described in
the matrix, and an analysis of the public comments
technical specialists, evaluated how well each SD-5
that were submitted, AFCEE, EPA, and DEP agreed
South plume response alternative met each of the
by consensus on the selected alternative.
criteria, and used "Consumer Reports" type symbols
to fill in the matrix. Their analysis was presented to
the public in a document entitled "SD-5 South
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
The decision process for SD-5 South included an Many other opportunities were provided for infor-
extensive community involvement program. The mation exchange and public comment. These
comment period for SD-5 South ran from included:
September 16 to November 21. During that period, • Display ads in local newspapers
a series offact sheets was distributed to the public:
— • News releases and advisories
• "SD-5 South" provided an overview ofthe
plume • Public meetings and neighborhood sessions
• "Introduction to SD-5 South Plume Response • Posterboard sessions which presented maps and
—
Alternatives" described the alternatives under descriptions ofthe alternatives and the dis-
consideration to clean up the SD-5 South plume advantages and advantages ofeach
• "Groundwater Treatment Technologies" • Neighborhood mailing offlyers announcing all
provided an overview ofthe groundwater treat- meetings and neighborhood sessions
ment technologies being considered
• Appearances on local cable access television
• "Analysis ofSD-5 South Plume Response Alter- shows
—
natives" described the analysis ofalternatives
• Mailings ofall materials to those on the mailing
contained in the decision matrix document
list, the citizen teams, and property owners in
—
• "Alternatives Evaluation Matrix" provided the the affected neighborhood (total ofapproxi-
draft matrix, as filled in by the remedial project mately 3,000 for each mailing)
managers
• Presentations at citizen advisory team meetings
Throughout the decision process, documents were
placed in the public libraries and on the website.
Over 75 people attended the public meetings,
posterboard sessions, and neighborhood sessions.
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS USED IN THIS FACT SHEET
AFCEE: Air Force Center for Environmental recirculating well: a process for capturing, treat-
Excellence ing, and releasing groundwater within the same
aquifer: an underground geological formation well. The process is not expected to adversely
containing usable amounts ofgroundwater that can affect the water table.
supply wells and springs. remedial project managers: the program manag-
capture: to abate, contain, or recover a contaminant ers appointed by the Air Force Center for Environ-
by a remedy mental Excellence (AFCEE), the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Massa-
clean up: to remove contaminants from the
chusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection
environment
(DEP).
data gap analysis: a study or series ofstudies to
responsiveness summary: a document presenting
provide additional details regarding aquifer
all written public comments received and providing
characteristics and contaminant distribution. The
responses prepared by AFCEE, EPA, and DEP.
studies may consist of literature reviews an/or field
work. The information is used to assist with the Senior Management Board (SMB): an advisory
design ofthe selected alternative. team consisting ofthe selectmen ofthe four adja-
cent towns (Bourne, Mashpee, Falmouth, and
decision criteria matrix: a tool designed to enable
Sandwich), the U.S. Coast Guard, the Massachusetts
the project managers to compare and evaluate the
National Guard, the U.S. Environmental Protection
alternatives against a broad range ofcriteria
Agency (EPA), the Massachusetts Department of
DEP: Massachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Environmental Protection, and the Massachusetts
Protection Department ofPublic Health (DPH). Their current
downgradient: the area toward which groundwater tasking is to provide input on policy and
flows management issues involving plume response
actions ofpublic concern and to review the work of
EPA: United States Environmental Protection
all other citizen involvement teams.
Agency
Technical Review and Evaluation Team (TRET):
extraction, treatment, and reinjection (ETR): a
A
group ofhydrogeological and ecological experts
system that extracts groundwater, treats it to reduce from DEP, EPA, HAZWRAP/Oak Ridge National
or eliminate contaminants and reinjects the treated
Laboratories, Waste Policy Institute, AFCEE, the
water into the aquifer
Cape Cod Commission, the U.S. Geological Survey
groundwater plume: a body ofgroundwater con- (USGS), the University ofUtah, Kansas State Uni-
taining contaminants exceeding maximum con- versity, the Barnstable County Science Advisory
taminant levels as defined by multiple samples from Panel, the Woods Hole Oceanic Institution, and
multiple wells. In the absence ofmaximum con- other local scientists. The TRET is tasked with ad-
taminant levels, a risk-based level will be estab- vising the remedial project managers, AFCEE, and
lished. its contractors on technical and scientific issues of
plume response alternative: a specific configu- concern
ration oftreatment system(s) to be compared and
^%-
f
evaluated.
«£NlVr^g>
process action teams: citizen advisory teams at the Do,
MMR
including the Plume Response Team, the
Public Information Team, and the Long Range
Water Supply Team
Univ Wv
Ge