r.!'vi:':c:;;:7i;tr:i i-'-.ctectio;: agl-:;cy
TRANSCRIPT
SDMS DocID 286102
COili lOlJWEALTH OF iASSACHUSETTS
r.!'Vi:':c:;;:7i;Tr:i I-'-.CTECTIO;: AGL-:;CY
PUBLIC HEARING hela before the Environmental Protection
Aoencyr Tyngsijorouch Jr./£r. High School, Tynqsborouch,
ts, on Tuesday, April 16, 19S5, courr.c-ncing at
7 1 15 p.:;;., concern ing :
SOURCE-CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY CUI-il'JJ^Y, CKAI^LES GEORGE
LAi 'DFILL, TYI.JGSBOROUGII r MASSACHUSETTS .
BEFCRU: 1'err.ill honr.ia.n, E.P.A. T;este !;enaceK-.ent, Division Director
Richard Leighton, Site Project Officer U.S. E
Robert Bois, Enqineer, D.E.Q.E.
Mark I-euiev, Encineer, D.E.g.E.
CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC. Slate . 1365 Main Street Sprngtceld M« |413', 73;-8100 Nations! PilUWd MA<<13; 443-7263 International Springfield, MA 01103-1615 Hamora CT (103) 525-3Ci97
Norlhampton. MA (413) bM6- 3586 evenings
I N D E X
2
3
4
5
6
7
" 8
9
10
"11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
WITNESSES:
Gilbert Ohnesorge
Richard Gambale
David Bean
Charles Allen
Pat Allen
Thomas Bomil
Richard Davis
Artie Jackson
PAGE
5
13
14
19
24
27
31
44
L
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2
3 MERRILL HOHMAN: Good evening.
4 Welcome. Thank you for coming. Let me start by
5 introducing myself. I am Mel Hohman, the Director
6 of the Waste Management Division, Region I, of the
7 United States Environmental Protection Agency.
" 8 With me at the table here on my immediate right is
9 Rick Leighton from E.P.A., our Project Officer on
10 the Charles George site. Next to Rick is Bob Bois,
11 from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
12 Quality Engineering; and next to Bob is
13 Mark Begley, also from the State D.E.Q.E. Seated
14 over here in the front row corner is Debra Prybyla
15 from E.P.A.'s Office of Public Affairs and
16 Community Relations.
17 The purpose of this hearing tonight is to give
IB you people an opportunity to make oral comments on
19 E.P.A.'s feasibility study for what we call
20 Phase II, the source control for the Charley George
21 Landfill. You might recall that Phase I of that
22 project dealt with the need for alternative water
23 supplies over in the Cannongate area, and that work
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
is now underway, just so you are aware of where we
are. The Corps, of Engineers is taking bids for
construction on that project.
This is an informal public hearing, but we are
making a stenographic record, as you can see.
There will be a transcript prepared of any comments
that we have tonight. That transcript will be
available in our offices on the 19th floor of the
Kennedy Building in Boston. If for any reason,
anyone wants their own personal copy, please talk
to the stenographer after the close of the meeting,
and you can make your own arrangements directly
with her.
When you do speak, I would appreciate it if
you would identify yourself and also the group you
represent, if any. We have asked people to sign
up, and also to indicate on the sign-up sheet if
you would like to make a statement.
Just very quickly, I will let you know our
current feeling on the schedule for a decision. We
have the public hearing tonight. We will continue
to take written comments until April 19th. That is
this Friday. Then after that, we will go over all
1 of the written comments and any oral comments that
2 we receive tonight. We will review our own staff
3 work, and in this particular case, the regional
4 administrator, Mike Deland, hopefully will decide
5 which of these various options we are going to
6 proceed with at the Charley George Landfill, making
7 that decision, hopefully, about June 1st. Then we
' 8 will start design of that remedy immediately after
9 that.
10 I want to point out that this is Phase II, and
11 there is some reference in our fact sheets
12 describing this Phase II study to the fact that we
13 have another study continuing, the so-called
14 Phase III, which is looking at what needs to be
15 done to control any contaminants that may have
16 moved off of the landfill into the environment.
17 That basically is the schedule.
IB We have one individual who has indicated they
19 wish to testify, and I will call him at this time, •v
20 Mr. Gilbert Onnesorge.
21 GILBERT OHNESORGE: I just had a
22 couple of questions to ask.
23 MERRILL HOHMAN: We can make r n I i
1 this just' a small number, so just speak up so we
2 can hear you, and would you identify yourself and
3 where you are from.
4 GILBERT OHNESORGE: I am from
5 24 Upton Drive, right on Flint Pond. I read the
6 report. I had a couple of questions. They have
7 sampled some residential wells. They sampled none
8 in our area, and I wondered why not.
9 MERRILL HOHHAN: Do you want to
10 answer that?
11 RICK LEIGHTON: Yes. We have
12 had some conversations about this, and the last
13 time, I think, we spoke, we weren't sure whether we
14 had or had not.
15 GILBERT OHNESORGE: You hadn't.
16 RICK LEIGHTON: Well, yes, since
17 the last time that we spoke we had found out that
18 we had not. In conversations with our geologist
19 and hydrogeologist, they had indicated that they i
20 had placed monitoring wells between Upton Drive and
21 the site, as what we call base flow wells, to
22 determine the extent of the contamination moving
23 toward Flint Pond. I have seen a preliminary list
L. 'j 1 of the next sampling round, and, in fact, a number
2 of wells on Upton Drive or Upton Road are going to
3 be sampled this next time around. I think there
4 are like two shallow and three deep. If afterwards
5 you give me your telephone number, I will tell you
6 what numbers they are tomorrow. I don't have it
7 with me, unfortunately.
8 GILBERT OHKESORGE: They took
9 some samples. I just wondered why they ignored the
10 northwest section of Flint Pond, which is probably
-11 the largest area, and it's a straight line coming
12 out of the marsh, where there was a lot of
13 contamination found.
14 MERRILL HOHMAN: This is work on
15 the Phase III?
16 RICK LEIGHTON: Yes.
17 Unfortunately, I can't answer that, because
18 John George, our consultant, is not here. There is
19 two answers: (A) I will try to find out. Again, •k
20 when I talk to you tomorrow, I will let you know
21 that; but (B) Those concerns would be in our
22 Phase III study that is going to be investigated
r i 23 this suinmer as off-site work. I think that is one
I i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
L J
8 of the things that is going to be a little
confusing about the landfill/ versus all those
areas in which you all live.
GILBERT OHNESORGE: Just one
more thing. That was the fact that I know you have
been considering about 67 options in there?
RICK LEIGHTON: Correct.
GILBERT OHNESORGE: It points
out in that report two or three places, I can give
you specific pages on it, that there is absolutely
nothing they can do about the ground water,
controlling it. They can control the surface
runoff with this cap, but it will do absolutely
nothing to take care of the ground water.
MERRILL HOHMAN: I think that
is, again, what we are doing on this particular
project, because of the size of the problem, the
first phase was to get the public water supply
system over to the Cannongate area. \
The second phase is to seal off what we call
source control, control the landfill, so it does
not produce any more contaminants being released
into the environment. That is the phase that we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
are in right now.
The Phase III, what we call the off-site, we
will look at issues like is the ground water away
from the Landfill contaminated? If it is, what can
we do about it? What are the different options for
controlling and cleaning up that particular
problem? That will be the next phase.
GILBERT OHNESORGE: It did say
in the feasibility study, there is nothing you can
do short of complete removal. You are not going to
be able to stop it, because the bedrock is too
fractured.
MERRILL HOHMAN: Yes, if it gets
into the bedrock.
GILBERT OHNESORGE: It may be on
site now, but it must be working out, because they
found serious contamination in a deep well,
413 feet down.
RICK LEIGHTON: You are right.
One of the concerns, one of the real problems in an
issue like this is the landfill is so large that it
effectively precludes picking it up and moving it.
Ideally, I think everybody would agree if you could r L
L. J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10 do that effectively, that would be the best
solution so that you eliminated any additional
contamination into the fractured bedrock.
What the Phase III report is going to have to
look at, and to be perfectly frank with you, I am
not sure we are going to come up with any great
answers, because of the size of the problem out
there. Is there an effective way to capture the
contamination after it leaves the landfill and
either treat it or contain it in some method, and
the problem you alluded to is that because the
bedrock is so fractured, and they are finding
contamination at four or 500 feet below the
existing land surface, the technical answers to
those questions, unfortunately, usually is not
likely. It's very difficult. That is one of the
primary reasons, to be perfectly honest with you,
why there is a permanent water supply going into
the Cannongate, Red Gate area down that road; '**
because even if you were to remove, just to take it
a moment, even if you were to remove that landfill
tomorrow that you could physically do that, we are
not quite sure you could physically capture all the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
11 contamination that is already in the bedrock, the
fracture bedrock.
GILBERT OHNESORGE: Is it
possible to run a test? Is it possible there are
hot spots in that 70 acres? In other words, do
they haphazardly dump 55-gallon drums over
70 acres, or is it possible that they dumped on a
one, two, three, four, five-acre location, that
they could try to get before they cap?
RICK LEIGHTON: Let me see if I
can answer that. One of the difficult things, and
we have had a lot of discussions, is to a certain
extent you are talking about a 70-acre black box,
and we are trying to interview, to be very honest
with you, former workers, former drivers, people
who are associated with the landfill, people who
have a historical perspective, to see if, in fact,
we can pinpoint a particular area where there was
concentrated dumping and disposal. We have reason
to believe that (A) A large amount of that waste
that went in there went in what we called bulk
form; in other words, back of a tank truck opened
up, dumped it out with no barrels. We also have r i i i
12 1 reason to' believe that a fair amount of 55-gallon
2 drums went in there. It is very, very tricky from
3 a health and safety standpoint to dig in a landfill
4 such as the Charles George. It is conceivable,
5 though, as a result of those conversations with
6 drivers and some additional historical
7 information — and by the way, we welcome that.
8 Any rumors, innuendos, and tidbits that you would
9 be more than happy to say to us after the meeting.
10 If we could feel very confident we could pinpoint
"11 where that was, it is conceivable that we would
12 make an attempt to see if we could locate, you
13 know, a concentrated source; but again, I think you
14 are talking about a 70-acre black box, and to be
15 perfectly frank with you, even if there was no
16 hazardous waste in that landfill, I think you just,
17 by the nature of the landfill you would still nave
18 a fairly substantial environmental problem as a
19 result of natural and aerobic decomposition, you
20 know, all the stuff that we take for granted, all
21 the plastics and everything else. The fact that
22 there is two years of hazardous waste dumping in
23 there, over 30 years of industrial municipal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
L ' -i
13 disposal,'! don't think it's a significant
quantity. We are wrestling with that issue.
MERRILL HOHMAN: Anybody else
that wants to — I am going to subdivide this
meeting, if we can, into two parts. For our
purposes, in terms of having a formal record, we
would like to get into the transcript any comments
that people have about the study, the Phase II, and
then after that, we will feel free to answer
questions, and we will stay around, and Rick will
try and answer them for you and the state people as
best we can.
Is there anybody who wants to actually make a
statement or comment on the proposed, options and
so forth?
Right over there.
RICHARD GAMEALE:
Richard Gambale, Dunstable Road. Is money an issue
here? I know you have listed what it is going to
cost for the various alternatives. Is money an
issue?
MERRILL HOHMAN: Money is an
issue, I think, if you get to an option which costs
t.- 1
2
3
4
5
. 6
7
-;-- 8
9
10
-11
r--n 12
13
14
15
16
17
- 18
19
20
21
22
23
14 like as much as $1.6 billion. It certainly is an
issue, but other than that magnitude, I don't think
it's an issue. It's something that the Regional
Administrator will have to look at when he makes
the decision on which remedy he selects.
We are supposed to balance what they call fund
balancing, which means we have to balance the use
of Superfund money at one site against the
protection we can get at other sites by using that
money elsewhere. So if you want to look at, for
example, an incremental cost of $10 million to
$15 million, we would look at the extra protection
that extra $5 million would buy us and determine
whether this was a good investment to place it in.
To that extent, it would be looked at, but not to
the extent of saying within, other than say
$1.6 billion, because I don't think the Regional
Administrator would go for that cost. The money
isn't available; but other than that, I don't think '\
it's going to be a serious factor.
DAVID BEAN: My name David Bean,
Dunstable Road. There is a lot of talk what you
are going to do with what's at the dump. I haven't
15 L, . J 1 seen anything that is going to help people that are
2 living on Dunstable Road and that area. Everybody
3 is talking about the coming out on the street in
4 Cannongate. I have a surface well, and after
5 seeing your map, I would say that your little, that
6 little stream of contamination probably goes within
7 50 feet. My well tests okay. I don't understand.
8 I am getting a little panicy. One test over a year
9 ago, I guess it was, about a year ago, and nobody
10 came back to check it and see if it's increased or
11 done anything, you know. I don't understand what
12 the rest of us people that are following this
13 little track of contamination of how we are going
14 to end up after this feasibility study is all done.
15 RICK LEIGHTON: Okay. Obviously
16 a valid concern. In fact, another gentleman in the
17 prior meeting raised similar concerns. The Agency
-16 has devised a monitoring program, and obviously,
19 yours was one of the wells that it collected, and
20 it has tried to do that in the area of Cannongate,
21 Dunstable Road, Red Gate Road. We are extending it
22 over into the Flint Pond area, and also I want to
23 say Blodgett Road. Is that the one that goes to
V,
16 iL. J
2
3
4
5
6
7
" 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
the left bn the northwest. There was some concern
last time to the northwest of the site that we
hadn't done some sampling up in that area. So we
are hitting those, I won't say on a random basis,
but as we sample on a particular area, we are
trying to get an idea of the extent of
contamination.
What it appears, at the moment — there are
two answers to your question. First of all, it
appears that the contamination resulting from the
Charles George Landfill, as it relates to wells,
ground water, is in the fractured bedrock. It
doesn't go in the overburden. In other words, the
dirt between the bedrock and your house, what we
call overburden, it doesn't appear to be moving in
the overburden. It appears to be moving in the
fractured bedrock. So if you have a shallow well,
the chances are you are less likely to be impacted,
However, when we sized the permanent water supply"\
to go to Cannongate, we sized it large enough so
that it would take in existing, and some future
development, in that entire area. In fact, once
that water line goes in, as part of our routine
L J
r -i I i
17 1 monitoring, we find that your well all of a sudden
2 tests high, because of a problem associated with
3 Charles George, we have the ability to tie you into
4 a municipal water supply. In fact, that is what we
5 would do.
. 6 I think you are very fortunate in this
7 particular instance, unlike a lot of other sites
8 around the country that, hopefully, in a relatively
9 short period of time if, in fact, your well becomes
10 contaminated, there is a quick remedy to protect
11 your public health as opposed to two and a half
12 years when the wells at Cannongate tested as
13 contaminated. If you read the history, they went
14 through all sorts of problems to resolve that. So
15 I think there is two answers. One, we have done
16 some testing. I will take your name and address
17 afterwards and check back on last time. We can
- IB make arrangements conceivably to catch you in one
19 of the first additional well samplings, if you are
20 within our area that we are presently testing in;
21 and also, there is additional capacity there,
22 substantial enough to provide municipal water to
23 you should you ever need it.
L J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
18 DAVID BEAN: Through the lack of
a lot of snow this season/ I can see where the
surface well is going to be drained. As soon as
you start draining it down, you are going to be
sucking in some of that stuff that is running out
of the stream there. It's brown. I don't know
what is in it.
RICK LEIGHTON: In what, the
stream?
DAVID BEAN: Yes, it's a purpley
brown. It doesn't indicate it's any kind of stuff
I want to drink.
RICK LEIGHTON: Well, that's
iron oxide. That color is usually indicative of
iron oxide. It's a biological reaction as a result
of the leachate becoming exposed to the air, and
typically, any leachate, for that matter, any
ground water that breaks out under those
conditions, turns almost like a rusty color. It '\
ranges from a bright, almost orangy color to a dark
brown. That is indicative of some sort of a
contaminated load to that surface water. It is a
concern. I will be more than happy to talk to you
19 1 specifically afterwards to address that.
2 MERRILL HOHMAN: Again, that is
3 the type of thing that the Phase III study is
4 supposed to be looking at is that off-site problem.
5 What is the problem? What should we do about it?
6 Anyone else with comments on the study, this
7 particular study?
8 CHARLES ALLEN: My name is
9 Charles Allen. I live on Lowell Street in
10 Dunstable. One of the comments and concerns is is
"11 there going to be testing along Lowell Street?
12 There has not — D.E.Q.E. did one sample test about
13 three years ago. There has not been any testing
14 since then. Your best monitoring well showed
15 problems with contamination, and we ace concerned.
16 RICK LEIGHTON: I think, again,
17 in answer to your question, we do have an ongoing
is monitoring program. It does vary in size and
19 scope, and in all fairness to you, after the
20 meeting, I would like to sit down and have you show
21 me on a map where your house is, and I can give you
22 some indication as to whether you are scheduled for
23 some additional samplings.
20 1 Basically, for those who haven't listened to
2 my speal on this in the past, when the agency began
3 to do an investigation out there, we tried to
4 determine, using geophysical techniques and
5 hydrogeological techniques to figure out the best,
6 the most accurate way, to describe the ground water
7 flow leaving that site, and we have patterned our
8 ground water monitoring sampling and its results on
9 those as determinations. So there are areas in
10 which we collected some data, a couple of years
"ll ago, just to get an idea whether we understood the
12 magnitude of the problem, and when they tested up
13 clean, that had a tendency to support our theory;
14 and since then we have gathered additional data
15 that indicates we have a pretty good idea of which
16 way the ground water is flowing. As a result of
17 that, some of those people we have not been back
IB to, because we feel that they are outside the
19 influence of the contamination that would result
20 from the Charles George, but again, you may have a
21 circumstance that I am not familiar with, and I am
22 more than happy to talk to you about that
23 afterwards. The intent, clearly, of the agency, is
21 t_ J 1 to make sure that everybody who could be
2 potentially impacted from the ground water from
3 that has an adequate water supply. In fact, that
4 is the reason why it's oversized, because there is
5 a feeling, you know, that as time goes on that that
6 area inay expand. We want to be able to incorporate
7 those people. So we do not have a preconceived
8 notion on the number of houses that need to be
9 hooked up to that. It will be made on an ongoing
10 basis, as we have reason to believe that people
"11 potentially are impacted. So again, why don't I
12 talk to you also after the meeting.
13 CHARLES ALLEN: Second comment
14 is in your various capping schemes here, one of the
15 schemes goes for a full synthetic membrane. Do we
16 know how long it takes that membrane to break down?
17 Is this something that has been done over a period
is of time so people know what the results is? And if
19 the membrane does break down, what happens?
20 RICK LEIGBTON: Okay. I think
21 for the purposes tonight — first of all, I think
22 the response of this summary, you will want to look
r i 23 for the answer to that specific question, because
1 i
22 1 it will be in more detail, but I think as a general
2 answerf both the use of clay to cap landfills or
3 hazardous waste sites and synthetic membranes are
4 relatively new technologies applied to what is
5 perceived as a relatively new problem. In both
6 instances; and in fact, in all hazardous waste
7 sites, one does not implement the solution, having
8 a ribbon cutting ceremony and walk away. In fact,
9 there are periodic maintenance and upgrading,
10 et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The data to date
-11 in some of these landfills that have been covered
r. 12 with synthetic membranes for 15, 18 years is kind
13 of the outer range of how long these things have
14 been used is that they are a very effective
15 technique for minimizing either infiltration out of
16 lagoons, you know, that have industrial-strength
17 quality of waste in there, or to shed water off
18 them such as we would use in the landfill. For me
19 or for any engineer to say that either (A) clay or '\
20 synthetic is going to be a foolproof long-term in
21 the sence of infinitura technique, I think is
22 foolhardy. All the techniques we implement in this
23 will require a certain amount of periodic
23
L "*J 1 inspection, upgrading and maintenance. We feel
that it is a viable technique. In fact, it has 2
been proven to be a viable technique in other sites 3
around the country. 4
5 MERRILL HOHMAN: I would add
6 under the statute, the State of Massachusetts will
7 have to enter into a contract with us to assure us
8 long-terra maintenance of that site, and that is one
9 of the State's responsiblities that they will be
10 reassuming that responsibility about — we will pay
•11 for the maintenance for the first year, and then
12 after that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has to
13 be responsible for it.
14 ROBERT BOIS: I f I could just
15 say something. Again, the 0 & M, the operation and
16 maintenance, will be identified as part of the
17 overall solution for the source control action. So
IS it won't be a surprise to anybody. What I have
19 seen in the past are fairly adequate, comprehensive
20 and address long-range solutions to deal with, God
21 forbid, a failure in a line or something like that.
22 MERRILL HOHKAN: Are there any
other comments? 23 r L
24 1 PAT ALLEN: How are you going to
2 make the decision to go with synthetic or clay?
3 What is the decision going to be based on?
4 MERRILL HOHIIAN: The Regional
5 Administrator is going to make this decision. He
6 is going to look, first of all, at the best
7 technical judgments we can get on the reliability
' 8 of one versus the other. He is going to,
9 certainly, be looking at the costs, since he has to
10 consider cost-effectiveness. I would think
•11 probably the major factor, though, is going to be
12 determining which of these techniques is going to
13 give us the best protection of public health,
14 long-term. That will be the overriding factor.
15 CHARLES ALLEN: A third comment
16 is the organic materials found in the vents beds.
17 It was stated in the report that these were not
18 harmful; however, there were 19 of them listed in
19 high concentrations. My question is: How can •>.
20 there be any research breeding 19 different gases?
21 Is there any research to show that particular
22 combination of gases is harmful or unharmful?
23 RICK LEIGHTON: Well, I think to
25 1 try to address that as a concern, the report does
2 indicate, you know, based on preliminary
3 information that while inside the vent proper, the
4 values are relatively high of some carcinogenic
5 materials and suspected carcinogenic materials that (/
6 in all the ambiant samplings in and around the
7 vents and downwind of those vents on the day that
8 they were sampled, that the values were
9 nondetectable; and as a result of 'that, N.U.S.
10 made the statement that they felt that it was not a
"11 significant public health impact.
12 Now, we internally, in the agency, don't
13 necessarily embrace that as, you know, as the
14 answer to those concerns. I think what they were
.15 saying is, Gee, based on our limited data to date,
16 we don't feel it's a significant public health,
17 acute public health impact. The issue of what to
18 do about those 19, or, for that matter, any other
19 organics that are admitted from there are going to
20 be the focus of two studies essentially, Camp,
21 Dresser & McKee as part of their remedial design to
22 implement whatever alternative we are going to put
23 in there is going to do some additional air
26 L J 1 monitoring as to the nature and rate and
2 concentration that those gases are being admitted/
3 so we will have a better data base on which to make
4 any definitive statement; and (B) The long-term
5 control and monitoring of those volitle organics
6 that are being admitted will be the subject of this
7 Phase III.
8 I think it's safe to say that we are as
9 concerned about the long-term generation rate of
10 those, as you are; and, in fact, what you find, to
11 be very honest with you, is that when you put caps
12 on landfills, such as this, and you begin to
13 dewater, if you will, the water that is inside the
14 landfill, as you begin to dewater the landfill, the
15 rate and the nature of the wastes that are
16 generated not only from a leachate standpoint, but
17 also from an air standpoint, change considerably.
18 Again, as part of the ongoing monitoring, we
19 would be monitoring the air on a regular basis, and "^
20 at any time we felt that it was, you know, of
21 concentrations to be a concern, again, we would
22 implement some sort of remedial alternative. So
the only thing I can say is I am not pleased r i
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
L J
n rI I
27 necessarily with that statement, because I think
that is a fairly broad brush statement given a
relatively limited data basis. Obviously, if I
were a citizen sitting up there instead of down
here, I would be saying, yes, they are talking
about my health and welfare. So if I had more time
to rework this, I would have had them modify that
as a statement, but I think in answer to that
concern there is going to be a lot more work done
before we stand behind a definitive statement like
that.
MERRILL HOHMAN: Other comments
or questions on that proposal?
THOMAS BOMIL: Hi. Tom Bormilr
Director of Public Health for the Town of
Tyngsborough. It was brought up about the gases,
and it seems I get two calls a week regarding that
situation and say our citizens they were here to
talk about that, complaining about the gases coming
from the landfill. In the Phase III study of the
landfill, just to interject, I do get calls in my
office probably once or twice a week on it. What
is that odor down there. You are driving down
28 L. J 1 Route 3. • What is that terrible odor.
2 RICK LEIGHTON: One of the
3 problems, and again, not to get too far off the
4 subject. One of the problems about air — it's
5 very tricky for me, as site manager in a hazardous
. 6 waste site is that the odor detection limit that
7 you and I can smell, if you don't have a cold like
8 I do, is much lower than we are able to detect -on
9 very sophisticated instruments; and as a result,
10 scientific conclusions, health data, et cetera,
11 et cetera, et cetera, are extrapolated on the basis
12 of numbers, basically. And, in fact, when you get
13 into the whole idea of air modeling and air
14 dispersion and everything else, what you find, in a
15 lot of instances, not only in hazardous waste
16 sites, but in industrial air discharges is that
17 lots of times you can quote, unquote, smell a
- 18 horrendous odor, but, in fact, you cannot detect it
19 on instrumentation. Vie are talking about some '\
20 fairly sophisticated instruments in some instances.
21 If you look at the health data associated with
22 those very very low levels, they are not a health
23 concern, but you and I who walk out our back door
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29 and smell'that, clearly that is tough for us to
comprehend. In fact, I am in the process of trying
to set up a meeting with Margaret McDonough of our
air division to come out and specifically talk
about those issues. I forget the woman's name. If
you know Pat Allen — if you know Pat Allen. Are
you Pat? Okay. Then you must know Pat Allen.
have to talk to you about when we are going to
actually set up that meeting.
MERRILL HOHMAN: Other questions
or comments on the report?
GILBERT OHNESORGE: You decided
as far as on site that it's Charley George's land,
and that it's. I say it should be extended to the
F3 int March area, which is directly across Route 3.
Route 3 is a nice dividing line, but that is where
all the run off is going, not only from the eastern
slope, but also, believe it or not, all way from
the northwest down toward Cannongate. It ends up
back in the Flint Marsh. I realize you are going
to go beyond that as far as off-site. I say that
should be included as on-site.
RICK LEIGHTON: This study is r I
I
p—IL. -j 1
30 what you are saying?
2 GILBERT OHNESORGE: Yes.
3 MERRILL HOHMAN: Other comments?
4 RICHARD GAMBALE: Have any
5 health studies been conducted in the area to
6 determine if there are diseases people are
7 contracting for one reason or another?
8 RICK LEIGHTON: Nor not to my
9 knowledge.
10 RICHARD GAMBALE: Will there be
11 one?
12 RICK LEIGHTON: That would be
13 the Department of Public Health and the D.E.Q.E.
14 that would be involved in both of those. Maybe Bob
15 could talk about that a little bit more.
16 BOB BOIS: The way things
17 operate in the past anyway is any unusual
18 occurrences, say for example, Woburn, a cluster of
19 leukemia cases, the Board of Health sometimes gets '•v
20 involved with recommendations. We don't usually go
21 in. There are 351 towns in the Commonwealth, and
22 they do health studies, because there are so many
23 different variables involved in a study like that.
31 L J 1 Where you-draw the line? What is above normal?
2 What is average? That type of thing. What is
3 acceptable? To my knowledge, there is nothing
4 planned for in Tyngsborough. That doesn't mean
5 there won't be. We are just saying we don't have
6 any facts that would lead us to making a decision
7 like that, to do a health study in Tyngsborough at
8 this time.
9 MERRILL HOHMAN: I think one of
10 the key features on the Superfund program is that
11 we do not have to prove that there is actual health
12 effects resulting from a problem, only that the
13 site has the potential through the release of
14 material to the environment, that it has the
15 potential to cause problems. We can go in and
16 basically cut off that potential. So we don't have
17 to have a health effect study to be able to come in
18 and control the problem.
19 Other questions or comments on the report?
20 RICHARD DAVIS: My name is
21 Richard Davis. I live on Red Gate Road. I am
22 concerned about Phase II and Phase III and how the
r "i 23 resolution of what you do in Phase II impacts what
i i
32 1 happens to Phase III. I hate to see it get to the
2 point where you are ready to impliment whatever you
3 do in Phase III finds that that suggests that there
4 is a different solution to capping or removal or
5 what have you. How much does one impact the other?
6 RICK LEIGHTON: I would say,
7 given the size of the site and the work that we
8 have done up today, that it is conceivable in
9 Phase III that what we did in Phase II may make it
10 more difficult to implement something in Phase III,
11 but it would not preclude it. In fact, if you were
12 talking — somebody was talking a little bit
13 earlier about if we decided how the decision would
14 be made between clay and synthetic. One of the
3.5 advantages of clay is that you can go in and dig it
16 back up and then reseal it easier than you can with
17 synthetic. You can still do it with synthetic, but
18 it's a little more complex. If we feel that we
19 would need to do something in the landfill proper,'̂
20 in Phase III, that we did not do in Phase II, then
21 that would argue for a little bit for clay. I
22 think, to be very honest with you, that we don't
23 feel, given our knowledge about the site and how
33 1 these things go forward, that we are going to do
2 anything in Phase II that would adversely impact
3 Phase III; but, in fact, substantially abate what
4 we perceive as a major ongoing problem, an insult
5 into the environment, which is, you know, leachate
6 production across Dunstable Road, over into the
7 brook and also going the other way, as this
8 gentleman has indicated, toward Flint Pond. This
9 cap is going to substantially minimize it, not
10 eliminate it. We are in Phase II. We are putting
•11 in some — we are putting in a leachate collection
12 system, because clearly it's much more cost
13 effective to put that in now than to dig up half
14 the landfill to put it in later. I don't think we
15 are doing anything in Phase II that will adversely
16 impact Phase III.
17 RICHARD DAVIS: If you decided
-1-8 tonight when you left here that there was a
19 particular solution, let's say you decided with a
20 clay cap, what is the time frame to get something
21 like that into effect where you turned it over to
22 the State D.E.Q.E. and they are then handling that?
23 What kind of time frame are we talking about?
J i
34 U. . J 1 RICK LEIGHTON: I think in my
2 mind — I won't speak necessarily for the agency,
3 because there are some formal processes that we
4 have to go through for approval, but we are looking
5 toward obligating the money and trying to begin
6 physical field work some time late this fall, early
7 this winter. Now, it may, to be perfectly honest
8 with you, it may not be effective for a contractor
9 to get geared up only to have it snow, and as a
10 result of that work may not physically begin out
11 there on that site until the spring. The intent of
12 the Agency, my job, if you will, is to insure that:
13 (A) The right decision is made; (B) That we address
14 any of the concerns we hear tonight as well as
1.5 internal concerns; and (C) That that is done in an
16 effective and timely fashion. In Mel's jargon, the
17 sooner the better, but there are processes that we
18 have to go through to protect everybody's
19 interests. '\
20 RICHARD DAVIS: Once that takes
21 place, the politics and so forth are worked out,
22 how long does it take to put the clay cap or
23 synthetic membrane?
35 1 RICK LEIGHTON: I think, again,
2 it may be a little premature. I think if we were
3 to start tomorrow, I think, you would be talking
4 anywhere from a year to two years period of time to f
5 physically do that. If, in fact, we are talking
6 about clay now, just to take and extrapolate this a
7 little further, we are talking about somewhere in
8 the order, full clay cap, somewhere in the order of
9 200,000 cubic yards of clay. First of all, it's
10 going to be a fairly large man-made lake somewhere.
"11 Second of all, that involves somewhere in the order
rr>.——I _!*••„ '• \J 12 of 20,000 tractor trailer rigs. We are talking
13 18-wheel tractor trailer rigs. So that means that
14 we would have to go to the D.P.W. to physically, I
15 think, what we would end up doing is conceivably
16 getting an access ramp built off of Route 3 to the
17 site, because clearly none of you out there, even
18 though you want this site resolved, want 20,000
19 18-wheel tractor trailer rigs down Dunstable Road,
20 unless I misread you as an audience. That may
21 physically take some time. In fact, that is what
22 we may spend all fall doing is getting those
r 23 permits and building that access road, if that is
L
36 L. J what we feel is needed to be done. So it's not a 1
2 simple or straightforward — logistically it's a
3 very interesting task, and any hair that I have
4 will clearly be gone by the time this is all
5 finished.
6 KERRILL HOHMAN: The other
7 comment is if you are using clay, you run into real
8 problems in terms of the weather in that: (A) If
9 it's too wet, obviously you can't spread the stuff;
10 (B) We have had to shut jobs down because of
"11 freezing weather, because you can't compact it
12 properly and so forth, so you are very dependant on
13 the weather, too. You might have a construction
14 project which would start, run through the summer
15 and into the fall. In the winter, it might have to
16 be shut down for four, five months until warmer
17 weather and could get back in and resume work
18 again.
19 RICK LEIGHTON: The other thing "v
is stop and think about all this. At the same time
21
20
we are going to be having a permanent water line
22 coming through that area. My job is to make sure
23 that you don't have trucks competing against each
37 1 other. It may take us a period of time to get this
2 in. Again/ my job is to make sure that happens as
3 expeditiously as possible. To be perfectly honest
4 with you, if we are forced to come in
5 Dunstable Road with all those trucks, then we are
6 going to have to sit down and work out some
7 arrangement that is acceptable with the residents,
8 you know, to minimize the impact on them to do
9 that, and that may change our time schedule.
10 ROBERTS BOIS: If I cold just
11 add. I think the easiest part of this whole
12 project is making the decision on what to do. The
13 second part, the actual how to do it, the
14 logistics, is a little different.
15 DAVID BEAN: Charley George
16 probably put more trucks on the street than you are
17 talking about.
18 RICK LEIGHTON: In fact, you may
19 well be right. I don't know. I can tell you this,
20 I have been involved in enough other sites that,
21 you know, people are real happy when you are
22 talking about knocking the buildings down and
r i 23 coming in and putting clay, but the second those
i i
iL J
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
38 tractor trailer rigs run past their front door tail
to nose, tail to nose, they are not pleased with
that. Being the proud parent of a little girl, who
likes to run around, I wouldn't either. Those are
the logistics that we have to work out. 20,000 in
my book, 20,000 trucks is a large number of trucks.
You are probably right.
DAVID BEAN: I know I am right.
MERRILL HOHMAN: Any other
comments anyone wants to make on the report?
RICHARD GAMBALE: How is this
clay going to prevent the water from causing
further problems? Clay is not completely
impermeable, is it?
RICK LEIGHTON: Clay properly
compacted is relatively impermeable. Nothing,
including synthetic membranes, is completely
impermeable. Although synthetics are more
impermeable than clay, but under the correct i.
moisture content, which means when you are handling
it you can compact clay to densities enough to
effectively preclude water from penetrating through
the clay into the landfill. In fact, the water
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
rrr —!/ . • J
39 would run- off the clay, much as an umbrella and
then off-site, and it would be controlled off-site
and probably be diverted into the Flint Pond and
also the Dunstable Brook as uncontaminated surface
water, but you can, in fact, get transmissivity
rates of clay down into less than inches per year,
rate of water moving through it. It can be done.
ROBERT BOIS: Clay with the
proper grade and slope for cover will limit, really
limit. What it is, is the water will flow off of
it.
MERRILL KOHMAN: Plus you have a
leachate collection system as a back up to, if any
does penetrate, right?
RICK LEIGHTON: From a
peripheral standpoint. In fact, I think that is a
little bit of a misnomer. For those who have read
the report, you will see that N.U.S. calculates a
percent reduction of leachate. In fact, even with
a synthetic liner, there will still be some
leachate generated as a result of ground water in
the area penetrating the landfill. And in the
Phase III, we will try to look at options to
40 L.. . J 1 minimize that; but clay is a, you know, is a very
2 effective technique for minimizing infiltration.
3 RICHARD GAMBALE: Is the
4 landfill presently covered in clay?
5 RICK LEIGHTON: No, it is not.
- 6 There are sections that are covered with clay-like
7 material, but it was never properly applied; and,
8 in fact, if you were to go to, let's say, the
9 Schaefer Landfill in Billerica, at the moment they
10 are in the process of, you know, covering that with
-11 a clay/soil mixture. So it's pretty expensive. So
12 landfill operators don't like to do it, and one of
13 the reasons why Charles George is bankrupt at the
14 moment was the useful life of the landfill was
15 coming to the end, and the cost of closing it
16 properly was looming. I think that is one reason
17 why he, you know, declared bankruptcy.
18 MERRILL HOHMAN: Any other
19 comments on the report or the proposal? "\
20 RICHARD DAVIS: You talked about
21 the impact of 20,000 trucks so forth. What is the
22 impact of a synthetic membrane? What gets involved
23 in there in terms of after the decision is made?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
•
-
23 r -i
41 RICK LEIGHTON: You mean as far
as the impact similar to the trucks. The numbers
would be less, but we still v/ould need to bring in
a fair amount of crushed stone, and what we call
bank gravel, regular dirt and sand. If you were to
look in here, okay, what you can see in the
sythetic one is it kind of outlines bringing in a
drainage layer, then six inches of sand, followed
by synthetic and followed by some more sand,
followed by some more dirt. In fact, the numbers
are reduced somewhat, but still a major logistical
undertaking. In other words, I don't think you as
a resident would substantially notice a difference
between installation of a synthetic cap or clay.
And one of our concerns, again, is the availability
of good quality clay in sufficient quantity to do
the job. The closest source that we know of, off
the top of our head, is in Kingston, New Hampshire.
RICHARD GAMBALE: The membrane,
I take it, is readily available?
RICK LEIGHTON: They would have
it on a train in a matter of minutes. There are a
number of people who make it and install it.
i i
42 L J 1 RICHARD GAMBALE: How many truck
2 loads would it take to remove the landfill, just
3 strip it?
4 RICK LEIGHTON: I don't know the
5 number off the top of my head. There is a
6 calculation in here, and that is where that
7 $1.6 billion comes into effect, costs of doing
8 that.
9 MERRILL HOHMAN: Other comments,
10 questions?
-11 GILBERT OHNESORGE: You are
F"~ 1 f --. •- 12 going after the Superfund money for whatever type
13 of solution you come to for the site. Are you
14 allowed to go back into the cookie jar for
15 off-site?
16 MERRILL HOHMAN: Yes.
17 GILBERT OHNESORGE: Do you have
18 to more or less go after it at one shot?
19 MERRILL HOHMAN: No. '\
20 recognizing what we are trying to do as we proceed
21 with a lot of these sites is to break them up into
22 little packages, if you want. In this case, the
23 water supply, get that taken care of, then try to
p 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
"11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 r
43 stop in effect, figure how do we stop the material
from escaping to the environment/ the source
control, and how do we clean up what has gotten out
there? That is Phase III. That is a mechanism we
are using at a lot of our sites.
Number one, it speeds up the whole process,
rather than having to wait until we have all of the
answers. If we can break it up into segments, ^e
can get started and reduce some of the problems
while we are still trying to figure out the answers
to the off-site, for example.
CHARLES ALLEN: What is the
projected time scale on Phase III?
RICK LEIGHTON: Its schedule,
the remedial investigation phase, which is actually
putting numbers to those ranges that are in this
study and explaining that in a little bit more
detail what N.U.S. feels, is scheduled to come out
in the middle of the summer, probably somewhere,
you know, in July.
The feasibility study, which deals with the
off-site, the Phase III feasibility study, would
probably come out some time in the early fall and,
L
L J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
44 in fact, 'we would probably spend most of a better
part of next fall having similar discussions with
you on thatf because, obviously, that addresses a
lot of the concerns that we have heard tonight.
MERRILL HOHHAN: We would have
another go around of public meetings and then
another where we get to the decision point of that
off-site control there will be another public
hearing and an opportunity for written comments and
so forth, just as we are doing tonight on this
particular package.
Somebody? Do you want to speak?
ARTIE JACKSON: My name is
Artie Jackson. I live at 1 Canter Road. In making
a decision, which solution is going to be the right
solution, how much importance do you place on,
like, the number of people who make comments? This
isn't, like, a monstrous crowd here.
MERRILL HOHMAN: No. •k
ARTIE JACKSON: Or do you make
what is the best solution, the real best solution?
MERRILL HOHMAN: I think in
making the decision of what is the best solution,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
45 r we are going to look at the comments that we get
both orally tonight, what she is taking down in the
record, and also any that we get, written comments
coming in until the close of the comment period.
We will be looking at those; and basically, I
think, looking at them for two purposes. First is
making sure that we have all the information that
we are going to make the decision on; and secondly,
to the extent that we can looking at local concerns
and looking at the desires.
Ultimately, the Regional Administrator has to
make a decision on what is called under the
statute, "the cost effective remedy", for the
particular site that we are dealing with. To the
extent that that remedy, if you are making a close
call between two different options, for example,
the public comments that might well tilt you one
way or the other. If you were talking about
something that was a tremendous difference in
spread, then they probably would have to be weighed
more heavily against differences in cost. It isn't
the number of people that show up by any means. It
is the nature of the comments that we will be
L. J 1
2
3
4
5
- 6
7
. -;- 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
- 18
19
20
21
22
46 looking at, and the comments, kind of comments we
are having here tonight about concerns about truck
traffic, for example, that might be involved.
Those are the kinds of things that will factor into
the decision to the extent that we can.
DAVID BEAN: It says in
Phase II, the State ranks the site. Where does it
rank?
RICK LEIGHTON: To be perfectly
honest with you, I don't know where it ranks.
will say this much: That if I had a nickel for
every site that ranks in the top ten worst ones in
the country, I could be tired, because it all seems
to do that. The ranking, to be very honest with
you, I forget where it actually comes out in the
ranking of 413.
Debra, do you know? Do you have an idea?
DAVID BEAN: Is it a possible
risk to human life, not necessarily the ranking • \
against Billerica or Woburn or anywhere? Is it a
possible risk like hazardous potential of
substances at the site?
RICK LEIGHTON: We use a 23
I
L J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
. " 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
- 18
19 i
20
21
22
23 r "i
47 mathematical model, okay, to address every site
that we come across, and it's the State that is
required to do that. When they are interested in
getting a site eligible for Superfunds, we ask them
to rank it. It looks at a number of criteria. If
you are interested in those criteria and what
numbers are used for this particular site, that is
a matter of public record in our library at E.P.A.
that you are more than welcome to look at. If, in
fact, you give me a call, if the record is
relatively short, I may be able to supply it to
you. Essentially, what it looks at is the nature
and the extent of the contaminants, the likelihood
of them to get off-site, the likelihood of them to
impact people. In other words, if you are in the
Mohave Desert and there is nobody around for a
thousand miles, it may rank relatively low, in that
particular phase of the mathematical model as
opposed to being in a highly industrialized area.
It's only a technique that allows us to begin to
sort out the, you know, all the sites to make them
all eligible for Superfunds. A lot is made about
it in the media, about it ranks number 14 on the
1 i
L J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
48 Nation's Worst sites and everything else.
DAVID BEAN: My concern in this
is people walking around now and in the past, on
site or in that vicinity. Now you ride a bike
through that area long before you put up the fence,
and Charles George is still driving his million
trucks up and down the street every year, and we
actually went on to the site driving on there to
dump some big stuff that we had, and we were on
there. What risk, and how is the health of the
people that were actually working on the site?
ROBERT BOIS: If I remember, and
I did look at the model. That is the model Rick is
referring to. What scored high was the impacted
ground water, Cannongate, the impact in that area.
I want to qualify this ranking system. For ranking
sites nationally, when given this model to fit a
Massachusetts need, it's sometimes bent and folded
and again, the relative number may be important, '•k
but again keep in mind whether it's first or fifth,
I don't see the importance there. I think in
Tyngsborough it refers to ground water.
DAVID BEAM: My point is if I am
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
i
49 going to work by that thing I want to know if I am
taking my health in ray own hands?
RICK LEIGHTON: I think in
answer to your question; first of all, a generic
one and then an answer specifically for Cannongate.
When the agency, either the state or federal
agencies become involved in a site where it is felt
that there is a potential and imminent substantial
threat, not actual, but threat, a potential threat
to the health or the environment, the law requires
us to take an immediate removal action. Now, in
Charles George, after looking at that, we felt that
the residents of Cannongate that were consuming
that water were potentially at risk. How great of
a risk, you can get epidemiologists to talk about
it until they are blue in the face. Clearly, the
law allows us to do something about that. In fact,
we took them off that water supply. The State did.
The State put in a water line. The agency came in
and upgraded that. If, in fact, we felt that there
was additional risk from you riding your bicycle or
you dumping something on the landfill in the past,
we would have eliminated that or minimized that. r L
50 L. J 1 We do not'feel that that is the case.
2 Now, we can have a philosophical discussion
3 about the chronic long-term impacts about the site
4 and odors and everything else. To be very honest
5 with you, there is no good answers about that.
6 Both the State and the Federal Government tried
7 very hard to minimize any real or perceived risk to
" 8 the public health out there. I would say in your
9 instance, and in Charles George's, it was the
10 people in Connongate drinking that water as far as
11 being really at risk. And riding your bicycles
12 past the site — in fact, our health and safety
13 plan only requires us to be in what we call Level B
14 protection, which is coveralls, work boots. When
15 we dig in the landfill, we have to wear a greater
16 degree of protection. Based on our health and
17 safety, we do not take any specialized precautions
16 to minimize impact on ourselves, just to give you
19 an indication. It's a big environmental problem, ^
20 no doubt about it. If people are still drinking
21 contaminated ground water, which they are not, that
22 is a public health concern. The big issue we feel
23 is the environmental insult at the moment and not a
51 L .J 1 public health problem.
2 MERRILL HOHMAN: Let me make one
3 other comment on our ranking system nationally.
4 That is that the ranking system is predicated upon
5 the potential for a problem and not the actual
6 problem, and there are cases where sites have been
7 put on the list as having a potential, but when you
8 actually get in and do the investigations, you may
9 well discover there isn't any problem; but, the
10 fact that it shows that potential means the agency
'11 is saying we want as part of the Superfund program
12 to take a look at it to see if there is, in fact, a
13 problem and if so, solve it or make sure once and
14 for all there is not a problem.
15 MERRILL HOHMAN: Other comments?
16 ARTIE JACKSON: Do you want us
17 to suggest what should be done, what we would want
18 to see done?
19 RICK LEIGHTON: If you would be i
20 more than happy to read it into the record, sure.
21 Behind door number two.
22 ARTIE JACKSON: My name is
r 23 Artie Jackson, again. I guess I would like to see
L
52 1 plan nuitvber 5 or plan number 6 with the full capped
2 control ground surface water. I would like to see
3 some kind of gas venting, by the site the gas
4 venting, see some treatment of that gas that is
5 vented. I would like to see a leachate collection
-• 6 system, and, I guess, also, if it's possible,
7 somehow treat ground water that might also be — I
' 8 know there is a big leachate problem, but I have a
9 feeling there is a bigger ground water problem, if
10 that has any potential, and, I guess, if there are
11 areas that seem to be very severely contaminated
12 that I have discovered through your conversations
13 with people that work there, with large deposits of
14 toxic chemicals, for them to be removed.
15 MERRILL HOHMAN: Thank you. Any
16 other comments or questions?
17 GILBERT OHNESORGE: When they
18 start any of this construction, whatever they are
19 going to do, are they going to try to seal off the •*
20 area itself as far as isolate it in a sense? Say,
21 for instance, a cofferdam that would stop runoff
22 through the culverts or at the head of the pond to
23 seal it off effectively, because you just said
53 L J 1 there is going to be a lot of disturbance when you
2 start fooling around with it.
3 RICK LEIGHTON: As part of any
4 action that we would take there, we would try to
5 minimize any additional insult to the environment
6 while we are implementing that. That would be hay
7 bales, site erosion fences, cofferdams, things
' 8 along that line. In fact, we also try to develop a
9 plan that if something happened that was
10 unforeseen, we would try to lay out in advance how
"11 we would remedy that. The citizens, by the way,
12 will have a chance to review that and comment on
13 that, to see whether they feel it's adequate. I
14 think it's very important, if I haven't said it
15 before, that me, as the project officer, I am not
16 going to go away. I will hopefully be accessable.
17 Hopefully have numerous meetings, and you will
18 voice these concerns, and clearly I don't have all
19 the answers. In fact, you as a resident, if you i
20 have specific concerns, we ought to address them.
21 If we can't specifically address them, because
22 there is not an answer at this point in time, we
r 23 ought to formulate some mechanism that if it pops
I
54 1 up, how we would address it, that you are satisfied
2 with it. In answer to your question, yes.
3 DAVID BEAN: I have heard in
4 different areas, don't ask me where, what is the
5 possibilities of a bowl underneath Charles George
6 to contain it all together and —
7 RICK LEIGHTON: There are some
, g very experimental techniques that are being
9 addressed through the research and development
10 program to see, what we call in our lingo, bottom
11 seal a site. They vary, to be perfectly honest
12 with you, from injection of grout into the fissures
13 of the bedrock, to actually freezing of the ground
14 underneath a site so they go the whole gamit. If
15 this were a relatively small site, that would be a
16 very distinct possibility for a number of reasons.
17 Where it is 70 acres in size, it may not be a
18 practical consideration, because the physical
19 logistics of trying to get something underneath it '•*.
20 that you would have some level of assurance that is
21 effective, is of real importance, and if you want
22 to use — I am terrible on analogies. I have
23 already apologized once at a previous meeting. If
55 1 you want 'to think of the site underneath there as
2 being essentially a colander that we strain
3 spaghetti on, which would be the fractures in the
4 bedrock, if you will, the problem with doing
5 something about putting a bowl underneath it is
6 that you could plug 95 percent of the hole in that
7 colander, but so long as there are five percent of
8 those holes remaining you would drive the leachate
9 and the ground water in there through the remaining •
10 holes just that much faster. In fact, you might
"11 not get any additional environmental protection.
12 Therein lies the problem with the 70-acre site.
13 It's how do you make sure you got all those holes
14 in my analogy, if you will.
15 MERRILL HOHMAN: Jim, if you
16 look at the possibility of creating a bowl under
17 the site, and you were able to seal it off
1-8 completely under the site, and in effect build a
19 bath tub, you still have to do something to seal i
20 off the top of the site, the cap, or else you will
21 have rain water coming through, and the bathtub
22 fills up and just begins to overflow out in the
23 environment again. You still have to keep the rain
56 i water out' of there and divert it from the top of
2 site and cap it.
3 RICK LEIGHTON: That kind of
4 dove tails your concern by placing a cap on theref
5 especially if it were clay, that would not preclude
6 if, in fact, you knew that was capable of
7 happening, would not preclude that, because you
8 could back seal that. In fact, you could even do
9 that with synthetic, although I would submit it
10 would be a little more difficult.
11 MERRILL HOHMAN: Any other
12 comments or thoughts or reactions to our different
13 options?
14 Okay. Seeing none, I am going to thank you
15 all for coming. I am going to formally close this
16 hearing, and we will stick around, and we can
17 continue talking about the Phase III idea and so
ie forth as long as you people want.
19 (Whereupon, at approximately
20 8:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.
21
22
23
57 L j i CERTIFICATE
2 I, Marianne Kusa-Ryll, Registered Professional
3 Reporter, hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and
4 complete transcript of the proceedings held on
5 Tuesday, April 16, 1985, at the Tyngsborough, Jr./Sr.
6 High School.
7
_. / fsi.t-f 8
Marianne Kusa-Ryll, CSR, RPR 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
- 18
19
20
21
22
23 r "i L _, 24