Volume II Pages 1 - 259 W. R. GRACE & COMPANY PUBLIC MEETING ********************************************* W. R. GRACE & COMPANY CONN. SITE AT ALEWIFE ********************************************* Jane H. Wells, Moderator June 17, 1999 7:10 P.M. W. R. Grace & Company 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts ************************** KAREN SMITH 14 PALMER AVENUE DANVERS, MA 01923 PHONE/FAX (978) 777-5802 A P P E A R A N C E S Panel: John Wardzel, V. P. Engineering and Manufacturing Support W. R. Grace O. Mario Favorito, Vice President, Legal W. R. Grace Edmund A. C. Crouch, PhD Senior Scientist Cambridge Environmental Amy Church, Haley & Aldrich Wes Stimpson, Haley & Aldrich Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Jane H. Wells, Deputy Director Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution Camilo Azcarate, Government Program Coordinator Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution Maria Perez-Bisbal Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution Also Present: Approximately 65 spectators were present. P R O C E E D I N G S 7:10 P.M. MR. WARDZEL: Good evening, everyone. We said we were going to try to start the meeting as close to 7:00 p.m. as possible. So, it's close to 7:10 so whoever joins us will just catch up. Thank you for joining us, W. R. Grace, Grace Construction Products, at our public meeting for this evening. I'll start with some introductions. I'm John Wardzel, Vice President of Engineering and Manufacturing Support for Grace Construction Products. On my left is Mario Favorito, Vice President of Legal. On my right is Edmund Crouch from Cambridge Analytical. Wesley Stimpson from Haley and Aldrich, and Amy Church from Haley and Aldrich. And finally, our moderator for this evening is Jane Wells. Jane is a Deputy Director of the Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution. MS. WELLS: Thank you, John. Good evening, everybody. We're pretty scattered tonight so, we'll get as close to you as we can. Thank you. I note some of you were here a week ago. Since I don't know everybody and certainly don't remember every face, could I have a show of hands of people who were here two weeks ago for the meeting just so we get a sense of the continuity. [Audience complies] MS. WELLS: Thank you very much. Many people -- the majority were also here. The agreement that was had at the end of the last meeting was that -- before we ended the last meeting is that you would ask questions and pursue some interests of yours about items that were on the agenda and hold one item -- actually, there are several parts to it -- the issue of the sampling -- asbestos sampling and other work that is planned and the management plan for how the results would be used in the future by the company. So, that's on the agenda tonight, and you should have plenty of time to explore the issues that are of concern to you on all those matters. I'm aware that in addition to the W. R. Grace data, there is also data from the split samples, and we will make sure that the information that needs to be incorporated into this discussion from that source also is appropriately incorporated. So, we'll see how that works after Amy makes her presentation. What Amy has agreed tonight to do is to keep it fairly simple and straightforward and to allow your questions to lead into whatever amount of detail seems important to you to explore and to spend as much time as possible on the management plan and ways that you would like to be sure that the management plan works to ensure your health and safety. So, Amy, are you ready? MS. CHURCH: Uh-huh. MS. WELLS: Okay. Let me just mention that after Amy's presentation which is really quite short, ten minutes or so, we will go to questions. And I have a helper tonight, Camilo, who some of you met before who works at our office. And an intern that has joined us this summer, Maria, will also be helping with tracking of some notes for questions that may come up. Yes, you have a question before we begin? MR. WEITZMAN: Yes. It's related to the agenda. That's why I was asking at this point. My name is Lou Weitzman. I live on Montgomery Street, and I appreciate the chance to come and have these concerns aired in public at a public meeting. And we thank you and Grace for the opportunity. Some of the issues are contentious, but from our perspective, as long as there is dialogue, we always feel there is hope. So, we continue to ask and hope that there will be more public meetings about all issues that come up and any issues that haven't been resolved. We really hope, even though it may not even be a legal requirement, we appreciate and we really would request more public meetings. Just a few very brief agenda-related items if I might just mention them from the perspective of myself and various neighbors. One is we had requested and were unable to get a copy of the transcript between -- MS. WELLS: From last week? MR. WEITZMAN: -- the last meeting and now. And it's very difficult, therefore, for us to prepare what we needed for this week. So, we -- I have a tape recorder, I mean, I will put it up there myself. But we would much prefer to get a transcript, a written transcript, and the tape itself. That would be our first request to the staff that are running the meeting. The second is that the -- from my understanding of your agenda items, there is not going to be a period to comment on the first or one of the items that came up last week, or actually, both items which -- at the end of the meeting, my understanding was that we -- clearly, time had run out and the neighborhood had not had a chance to really exhaust the questions. In fact, we were really just getting started on questions about the storage tank -- the underground fuel tank. We had just, for the first time, seen a picture of the storage tank, and we had heard explanations of what was going on. And as you might remember, it was quite heated because there was a difference of opinion about it. MS. WELLS: Yeah, yeah. MR. WEITZMAN: Anyway, I won't go into the detail other than to tell you that from our perspective, we would like, and really thought the understanding was there would be more time to comment on the storage tank, as well as the PAHs. From the neighborhood's perspective, there are plenty of more questions we have, and time had run out. MS. CHURCH: Lou -- oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. I thought you were done. MR. WEITZMAN: There were four items. That's the second. MS. CHURCH: Well, can I respond to that particular item? MS. WELLS: Please. MS. CHURCH: There is, there has been, and we're still in a 20-day comment period for the material that was presented and discussed last week. And if you want to send me an e-mail or send me some written comments that you had because of the stuff that was presented last week and the subjects that were gone into, you have until the end of the day on Wednesday, July 23rd, to provide me with that information. We can only cover so much information during a two-hour -- MR. STIMPSON: June 23rd. MS. CHURCH: June 23rd. I'm sorry. We only had so much time to cover a significant amount of information. Even tonight, if you begin to discuss things that we discussed last week, you're going to cut yourself off short for discussing the material that we're presenting here. So, I just encourage you to take advantage of the 20-day written comment period. That's what it's for, so that we can receive your comments. We'll put them -- our responses and the comments in a report format that will be available to you to read afterwards. MR. WEITZMAN: With all due respect to your process, I think that works for professionals in the field. For members of the neighborhood, really this is our only chance to come and make meaningful public comment. Most of us work significant hours during the day. We would rather have time for -- MS. CHURCH: You can handwrite it in any form. I'll take it and put it into writing. And if I have to, I don't like to do that, but I'll paraphrase your comments and answer them as best as we possibly can. MR. WEITZMAN: I'll speak for myself, respectfully, and for many neighbors, when we feel that if we don't have a chance to at least ask the questions that we have -- we didn't even have a chance to exhaust the questions. We don't expect you'll give all of the answers. So, the request is that these occur at public meetings. That was my third question part. But thank you for -- I understand you have a process to follow. We in the neighborhood are requesting a somewhat different process, based on the needs of the neighbors. The fourth and last thing I request from the perspective of the neighbors is, we did have some presentation of some facts and other items extremely pertinent to this issue. And we -- MS. WELLS: "This issue" being? MR. WEITZMAN: The -- all the -- the PAHs, the storage tank, as well as when we get to the asbestos. We were requesting some time. I think -- I'm not sure if folks made that known to -- ten minutes is the time -- is really all we need to present that information. MS. WELLS: Yeah. That's the conversation I'd had earlier with Mike. Let me just suggest an approach that I hope you will accept. Let's -- it was not my understanding that the discussion would be continued, but I'm only here to serve everybody. So, I would like to suggest that in view of the fact that quite a lot was explored last time on those other agenda items, that you hold that. Allow the asbestos, which was the published purpose of this meeting, to go forward. And assuming that you might reach a point where you wanted to return to the others before ten o'clock tonight, we -- I'm sure that they'd be glad to stick around and return to it. But do the asbestos, the published agenda, as the first item of business tonight. And see how far we get. And at that point, I'm sure that W. R. Grace will want to respond to what future opportunities they would like to talk about with you about, you know, working out other questions and other meetings. But I think we should go ahead with the published agenda tonight, now, and see how far you get. And if you want to finish that and go to the other questions, I'm sure we'll be able to do that, okay. MR. WEITZMAN: Somebody has just reminded me, and it's refreshing my memory that there was an understanding that we would have -- I think it was even specified as ten minutes at least to go over matters that had not been exhausted at the last meeting. And I must say also, I understand there are published agendas, but from the neighborhood's perspective, exhausting and truly talking in public about these matters from our perspective, takes precedent to any scheduling delays and so forth. This issue has to do with people's health, the safety of the neighborhood and children. And frankly, if issues have not been resolved, we're not -- generally, we're hoping that time limits are not the major factor in exhausting these issues. MS. WELLS: I understand, and people are willing to stay here tonight at least until ten, if everybody is, and talk as much as you want and then talk about future. So, I would -- it is my intent, unless I'm somehow persuaded otherwise, that any follow-up to two weeks ago's meeting will come at the conclusion of the presentation and discussion about asbestos. So, Amy, if you would -- MR. JOSEPH: [Inaudible] MS. WELLS: Please, you're taking time now. Please -- please, honor the agenda. MR. JOSEPH: Jane, Jane. This is public involvement. It's public involvement. So, I would like to say, speaking for myself, I would accept the format you suggest, starting with asbestos. But I would like a guarantee from Grace and a guarantee from you and from the DEP that all the questions and previous matters that have not been answered publicly -- and I'm not interested in the written stuff, because I've read that stuff -- the report, and I know what that's all about, all right. We want it done publicly. If all these things are not completely exhausted, then we want another meeting. MS. WELLS: Okay. Well, I think that's a topic to be taken up. I'm not removing that as a -- MR. JOSEPH: Well, before we agree to this agenda, we would like an agreement from Grace to agree to that. Period. MS. WELLS: Can we have a response from John? MR. WARDZEL: Well, I think the whole purpose of this is that we have an agenda, and we're going to try to -- we're going to stick to the agenda, and we're going to try to answer our questions. We're following a process here and, you know, if we can get on with this and answer your questions as effectively as we can, you know, that's the whole purpose of what we're here for. If there is some issue that you can't get resolved at this meeting, I mean, there's various ways to. Call me, call Mario, call Haley and Aldrich. There's other ways to try to get answers to questions you might have or information you might need. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you saying you won't have another public meeting? MR. WARDZEL: What I am saying is that we have this meeting scheduled. Let's see where we end up. I'm not going to say right now that we're going to have another meeting because I don't know when -- you know, we have to reach some type of conclusion with this. MR. JOSEPH: The suggestion I made was that you commit to another meeting if we do not conclude at this one. Now, that's reasonable. MR. WARDZEL: Well, like I say, we have to, you know, we have to really see where the questions are. If there's no new questions, if it's a repeating of questions, and if it's variations on a theme, it doesn't make sense to have another public meeting. MR. JOSEPH: So, who is the judge? MR. WARDZEL: Well, like I say, I think we'd like to have some type of -- to, you know, be in this together. MR. JOSEPH: In other words, if you say you think in your opinion it's just repetition, then you won't have another meeting and you're the judge? MR. WARDZEL: Well, I think, why don't we at least try to work -- why are we already at the beginning of this meeting talking about having another meeting where we haven't gotten even having the chance -- MR. JOSEPH: Very simply this: You're taking ten minutes to make your presentation. We're asking very respectfully if we can have ten minutes to present ours, and you're stepping on us. You're not giving us the same guarantee that you gave yourself. So, it's a matter -- issue of fairness. Plain and simple. MR. WARDZEL: Well, if we talk -- if we started at ten after and we had our pitch for ten minutes, there's two and a half hours for questions and answers. Two and a half hours. So, I mean, why don't we see where we are two and a half hours from now. MR. JOSEPH: What I would like then is a guarantee that we get ten minutes after your presentation for ours. If you want, we'll go first. MR. WARDZEL: No, I -- I mean, we're trying to present our material. MR. JOSEPH: Well, that's quite obvious. MS. WELLS: Look, look, let me just intervene. We haven't precluded getting the data that you have that you want the group to hear. And we will -- we will see to it that that happens. It may happen in more than one way. It may not be a ten-minute presentation, but we will see to it that anything you need to present to the group gets presented. So, can we go now, Amy. MS. CHURCH: As I indicated last week, before I get started with the presentation, I wanted to let you know what your resources are when you leave this meeting as far as getting information, asking questions, and turning in comments for consideration by W. R. Grace. The reports that I presented last week and tonight are -- and other previous reports are available at the public repositories. There are five. Four are located in Cambridge: One here at W. R. Grace, one at the North Cambridge Library on Rindge Avenue, one at the main Cambridge Library on Broadway, one at the City of Cambridge offices on 57 Inman Street. And then there's also a depository -- repository located at the Department of Environmental Protection in Wilmington. Additional reports will be available upon request. If you want to ask me for any additional reports from last week or this week that were presented tonight, then we'll write down your name and address and make a copy for you and send it to you. Or you can give me a call at work, or you can call W. R. Grace. I've noted my number up there [indicating]. It's 886-7394. You can call me and ask for a copy of a report. I'm also going to be available to answer questions and receive comments. As I indicated, tomorrow will begin a 20- day comment period for the information that is presented tonight. And, of course, we're already in a 20-day comment period for the information that was presented two weeks ago tonight. And I've given you my e-mail address. It's abc@haleyaldrich.com. Feel free to ask questions or send me comments through that venue. And as I just indicated, all these reports that have been presented are subject to a 20-day comment period where we'll accept your comments if you don't feel like you were able to say what you wanted to say tonight. MS. WELLS: Jack? MR. MIANO: My name is Jack Miano, and I work at the Department of Environmental Protection. I'm in the Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. And I guess I'm the technical point of contact for this project. So, since we're discussing your resources, anybody should feel free to contact me at the Wilmington office if they have any technical questions that they want to discuss about the site and the direction that the site is going. I know that several of the folks in the group have already contacted me on numerous occasions. And everybody should feel free to do so. If you think you might want to call, come up and I'll give you a card or jot my number for you if you think you might want to do that. MS. WELLS: Thank you, Jack. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Amy, what was your e- mail address again? I didn't get it. MS. CHURCH: Oh, sure. It's abc@haleyaldrich -- one word -- .com. Okay, so to start my presentation, I'm going to summarize the results -- the analytical results of the asbestos sampling program, the Phase I part of the compliance obligations that Grace has for this RTN at the site. This plan shows the W. R. Grace property. These are the buildings; this is the Alewife Brook Parkway [indicating]. Do I have my laser pointer this time? No. It might be easier. [Indicating] Jerry's Pond, Russell Field, and Whittemore Avenue. This plan, in squares and dots, shows all the locations that samples and borings were completed at the site as a part of the program that I'm about to present. And the blue circles indicate all the locations that asbestos was detected. MR. KAMMAN: I'm having a little trouble figuring the colors. Is it possible to dim the lights or turn off the lights? MS. CHURCH: Let me see what this does. Does that help, or do you want them both off? MR. KAMMAN: Try both. [Lights are turned off] MS. CHURCH: Okay? Is that better? MR. KAMMAN: Okay. MS. WELLS: Thank you for calling that to our attention. MS. CHURCH: So, I'll explain something on there in just one second. The summary of the analytical results and the program goes like this. We went out -- W. R. Grace went out and completed 300 borings on the site using geoprobe. And we collected 590 samples that were then analyzed using the methods that were outlined in the Final Asbestos Sampling Plan. And the results from the soil analysis that we did indicated that we got results ranging from no visible asbestos to seven percent asbestos present in the soil. Now, the same time that we were out there doing the program, representatives of the Alewife Study Group and the City of Cambridge were present on the site. And they collected split samples. And I know this much, although I think there might be more information, there was 31 samples collected that I have knowledge of that were analyzed. And their results ranged from no visible asbestos to 15 percent asbestos in the soil. So, what I wanted to show on this plan is that all the dark dots are the locations where the samples were collected. All the blue circles are locations where asbestos was detected by W. R. Grace, the Alewife Study Group, and the City of Cambridge. So, to date, to my knowledge, this is all of the data that we have that indicates the locations of asbestos being detected at the site. MS. GURAIN: Do you literally mean "and," or do you mean "or"? MS. WELLS: Could you identify yourself, please. MS. GURAIN: My name is Denise Gurain. I live at 125 Montgomery Street. MS. WELLS: Thank you. MS. GURAIN: My question is: Did you literally mean that the blue circles indicate where asbestos was found by all three, or do you mean that they indicate locations where asbestos was found by any of the testing? MS. CHURCH: By any. MS. GURAIN: Any. So, by Grace, ASG, or the City of Cambridge? MS. CHURCH: Correct. Yes. MS. GURAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. CHURCH: Thank you for helping me clarify. In response to a request that was at the last public meeting -- well, the one that was held in October, we also analyzed a number of the samples using transmission electron microscopy, which is also known as TEM. So, we took five percent of the total number of samples that were collected. That resulted in being 30 samples. And we analyzed them using this methodology. And the results that we got ranged from no visible asbestos to 4.8 percent asbestos present in those samples. And another point of fact that came out of doing that analysis was the identification of the type of asbestos. In every single sample that was analyzed, the type of asbestos that was present was chrysotile. There are many different types, and that was the only one that we found. And in addition to those types of samples, we also collected two different types of -- well, two different -- we collected air samples using two different methods. We had people that were working in the field wearing personal air monitors. And they were air filters that they wore right about here [indicating]. And the samples were analyzed daily, using phase contrast microscopy. And they were compared to the OSHA permissible exposure limit to asbestos. The results that we obtained through doing that type of air analysis was that the permissible exposure limit was not reached and not exceeded during the time -- the ten days that we were in the field. Now, the other type of air sampling that we did was TEM -- used TEM analysis as well. The transmission electron microscopy. We hired a sub- contractor to come out and place ten high-volume air samplers at different locations around the property during the time that we were doing borings. And they collected the air samples on a filter media, which was analyzed using the transmission electron microscopy. And we asked them to significantly lower the detection limit so we could be sure that we were analyzing for levels that would be indicative of, like, urban background levels. So, the method detection limit that we used was 0.0002 structures -- asbestos structures per cc. And we analyzed ten samples and did not detect any asbestos structures in those ten samples. MR. HOLLMAN: Quick clarification. MS. WELLS: Please do your name and location, please. MR. HOLLMAN: My name is Aram Hollman, 12 Whittemore Street, Arlington. Quick clarification. My impression was that air filter-type samples simply collected all types of particles. How can you distinguish between the variety of different types of dusts and other non-asbestos particles in the air and asbestos? MS. CHURCH: Well, the phase contrast microscopy, what we used on the daily samples, does only tell you how many fibers are present. And so, what you do is you take the number of fibers that were detected and you compare it to the permissible exposure level which was 0.1 fibers per cc. And if you don't reach the permissible exposure level that is just for asbestos in the total number of fibers, then you know that there hasn't been an exposure to asbestos. Do you see what I'm saying? MR. HOLLMAN: I missed some of it. Are you saying that the amount that is there for all fibers is less than what is permissible, then logically it's -- is that it? MS. CHURCH: Yes. MR. HOLLMAN: And you're saying that was the case? MS. CHURCH: That was the case. Now, for the transmission electron microscopy, you actually do find out what the fibers are. So, you know exactly how many asbestos fibers are -- or structures are present in the sample. That's how you can get down to an accuracy of, for example, 4.8 percent. MR. HOLLMAN: One other general question. A lot of your measurements were expressed in fibers per cubic centimeter. MS. CHURCH: Uh-huh. MR. HOLLMAN: A cubic centimeter is not a whole heck of a lot. It's about the tip of my finger. I was just curious, because when we breathe, we typically breathe much larger volumes. And I thought that maybe the number of fibers in a cubic meter might be a little bit more relevant. In order to go from fibers per cubic centimeter to fibers per cubic meter, you've got to multiply that by a million. Clearly, you get a much larger number. Is -- is that measure reasonable? I do not know what to make of whether the standards are reasonable. MS. WELLS: Okay. Do what you can with that, Amy. And then I'm going to ask -- MR. MIANO: The question -- MS. WELLS: Can you clarify, Jack? MR. MIANO: Could you state what the total volume sample was -- MS. WELLS: Wait a second, Jack. MS. CHURCH: It varied between -- it was eight hours. They were -- MS. WELLS: Repeat your question, Jack, please for the -- MR. MIANO: I'm just trying to clarify the answer to this question here. If anybody is under the impression that only one cc which, as this gentleman stated, is only about the size of your fingernail, was sampled, that would be incorrect. The high volume sampler samples air at a pretty good rate over a long period of time. So, the total volume of air that was sampled would have been very large. And as you suggest, sir, multiplying by a million is the appropriate way to make the conversion. And you can state the results in those units. MS. WELLS: Okay. Thanks. Go ahead, Amy. If you possibly can, let Amy -- how much more do you have about? MS. CHURCH: Ten minutes. I haven't gotten very far yet. MS. WELLS: I understand. The question may be answered in a moment. Will you just hang on a minute and let's see how far -- if you can hold your question until she gets a little more information out for you. Go ahead. MS. CHURCH: Okay. So, that is the summary of the results for the evaluation for asbestos in soil, which we are going to consider the Phase I portion of the investigations to be done under that RTN. And before I jump into the management plan, I just wanted to quickly present what we propose to do for the Phase II, the next step of assessment for the site. Now this report is available in the repositories. It's called the Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment Scope of Work. And what we're doing in the Phase II is evaluating other potential exposure pathways. So, we looked at soil in the Phase I. And now we're going to look at groundwater. We looked at soil and air. We're going to look at air again. We're going to assess groundwater, surface water, and sediment in the Phase II. And what we've proposed to do, and I want to point out that there's a -- there's just a mistake. All of the -- I'll move this up a little [indicating]. All the areas that are in green are the locations that are going to be sampled. The little -- the little diamonds are the locations -- proposed locations that we're going to put the air samplers, just like the program that I just described. These monitoring wells [indicating] are the locations where we're going to take groundwater samples. And where you see "sed. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10," those are the locations of the ten sediment samples we're going to take. And what I wanted to note is there is also four surface water samples that we're going to take and analyze for asbestos content. And they're not noted on here. But they're in the same four of the locations where the sediment samples will be collected. So, the surface water samples will be taken from Jerry's Pond. So, as I just said, we're going to collect ten air samples in a one-day program. And we're going to collect three groundwater samples, four surface water samples, and ten sediment samples and assess those for asbestos content. I just want to put this back up [indicating]. Okay. Now, what that brings us to is a summary. And what I want to summarize was the outcome of the Phase I. The most significant outcome of the Phase I work that we did in December is that asbestos is present in the soil at the site. We conducted, in response to a request by the City of Cambridge, an imminent hazard evaluation. And we found that there is no imminent hazard, nor is there a current risk to the asbestos that we've determined is in the soil at the site. However -- MR. KAMMAN: Can you just briefly define what "imminent hazard" and "current risk" are? MS. CHURCH: Imminent hazard -- well, the imminent hazard assessment was done because we found, in one location that wasn't fenced in, a sample that had -- a surface sample that had asbestos in it. So, what you do is you look at the condition of the site, the use, and the data that's been collected thus far, and you find out if there is a condition that would require immediate response actions. And we determined that there is no immediate hazard -- excuse me, imminent hazard at the site. And as far as current risk, we're saying that there's no risk to human health to the exposure of asbestos at the site as it's being used right now. MR. KAMMAN: I think it's an important point. But I don't understand the difference between -- by the way, my name is Daniel Kamman, 69 Harvey Street. MS. WELLS: Camilo. Would you just repeat, please. I'm sorry. DR. CROUCH: Let me take that a moment. MS. WELLS: Just a second, Ed. If you would let him repeat his name because last week they had a really hard time with the -- MR. KAMMAN: My name is Daniel Kamman, K-A-M-M-A-N, 69 Harvey Street, No. 1. My question is: What is the difference in the definitions of "imminent hazard" and "current risk"? I'm not asking for more details on what you found there. DR. CROUCH: Imminent hazard is a regulatory definition which requires, oh, gee, I mean, it requires current exposure and what's the extra bit? There's another bit as well. Above a certain level. Give it to Jack. MR. MIANO: Edmund, would you like me to take a stab at that? DR. CROUCH: Please do. MR. MIANO: The regulations of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, which is -- which are the regulations that sort of govern the assessment and remediation of contaminants at the site required that contaminants be cleaned to a level of no significant risk. That level of no significant risk is with respect to pretty much the lifetime of an individual, more or less. An imminent hazard condition is a condition where there's a significant level of risk only over a shorter period of time. That shorter period of time is generally considered to be up to several years. Maybe five or six years. And one way to assure that there is no imminent hazard is to do a quantitative risk evaluation. But an easier way to do it is to assure that there is no real exposure to the contaminant that's being discussed. So, those are the -- that's more or less the definition, risk -- significant risk over a shorter period of time. And those are the two ways to assess it. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just as a follow-up related to that question. Are the risk levels different under -- MS. WELLS: Hang on just a second. Go ahead. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are the risk levels different for industrial sites versus residential areas in terms of this as we're hearing about these - - MS. WELLS: In terms of current and imminent? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And no significant risk. All those terms. MS. WELLS: Jack, will you continue on with your explanation? MR. MIANO: The -- I think you might be confusing one or two terms here. It's not the risk levels that are different. The risk level that exists is determined by the levels of contaminants and the amount of exposure to them. The criteria that you compare that to are different for contaminants that you might be exposed to in a work-place situation where you -- you go into that work place knowing that those contaminants are going to be there while you're working. And that's governed by OSHA. And the risk levels that the MCP works with are risk levels, more or less, for a residential situation. And those risk criteria are much lower. MS. : And that's what was used here, residential? MR. MIANO: The imminent hazard level is with respect to residential, yes. Because we consider that to be the most sensitive receptor. So, an evaluation must be done that way. MS. WELLS: Okay. We have somebody else who has a question relating to this is it? MR. : Can I speak through this? Can you hear me? MS. WELLS: It should be on. MR. VOLPE: Hello. I don't think any levels are acceptable, period. [Applause] MS. WELLS: Okay. MR. VOLPE: The way I see it, it's one if by land, two by sea. You'll find it all over the place here. It's in the land; it's in the sea; it's in the water, right? You better watch out. Like 1775. MS. WELLS: They've acknowledged that, and I think -- MR. VOLPE: It's not acceptable, any levels. MS. WELLS: Thank you. Go ahead. MS. CHURCH: So, as Jack just helped me explain, there is not a condition of imminent hazard, nor is there any current risk at the site. However, W. R. Grace has plans to develop the site. And last time we were together at a public meeting, it seemed that a primary concern that you expressed to us was that you are concerned about the exposure to airborne asbestos, and you don't want it to happen. That is why for the remainder of my presentation I wanted to explain to you the management that Grace is using to prevent exposure to asbestos. That starts with the type of development that they're doing and goes on through actual plans that will be implemented at the site while excavation activities are going on. So, as I just stated, the plans that W. R. Grace have been developing are types of construction that minimize soil disturbance. So, that's the first step of managing exposure, is to minimize the amount of dirt that we're going to have to turn over. The second part of managing the -- any exposure to asbestos will be the Airborne Asbestos Management and Monitoring Plan that will be in place when we do excavations and be followed while the excavations are ongoing. And I'm going to explain that in detail in just a second. Before we get to the point of doing excavations on the site, there's going to be a significant additional characterization of the soil in the areas that are proposed to be disturbed. MS. WELLS: Excuse me, just a minute, Amy. Just hang on just a second. What -- what is your -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, she said "minimize the soil disturbance." That sounds great. I wanted a number there. How are they going to minimize? And how much soil will be disturbed? MS. WELLS: All right, okay. Thank you. Amy? MS. CHURCH: I don't actually have an answer to that, but it may become clear as we answer questions after the presentation. But the plans are proposed at this point. So, we don't have a number for the amount of area that will have to be disturbed in order to put the buildings up. So, as I was saying, additional soil sampling is going to occur before we get to the point of doing any excavations on the site. The additional soil sampling is going to be conducted in areas where the proposed construction will disturb the site. And the sample locations that are selected will be based on data that's been collected by the City of Cambridge, the Alewife Study Group, and W. R. Grace. And we anticipate now, based on the preliminary construction or development plans, that there will be hundreds of additional soil samples collected and analyzed using the same methods that we used for the program that I presented just at the very beginning of my presentation. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When will that occur? MS. CHURCH: Prior to excavation activities. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When is "prior"? MS. CHURCH: We don't know at this point. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will we know? MS. CHURCH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Before the end of Phase II? MS. CHURCH: We don't know. No, I doubt it because the Phase II is hopefully going to happen over this summer. MS. WELLS: Okay, we have somebody at the back. Camilo, can you get there with the mike, please. Wait, wait, wait. Wait just a second, please. Please, identify yourself and where you live. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: [Did not identify herself, as requested.] I just want to know what you're going to do if you find -- when you do your additional soil sampling, if you find high levels, then what happens? MS. CHURCH: Well, the results of the data that we've collected so far and the data that we're going to collect are going to be used to provide a basis for a management and monitoring plan that will be in place when we do the excavations. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm saying if you do the excavations and you find a high level, will you stop and reevaluate? MS. CHURCH: Oh, absolutely. I mean, well, the excavations -- we won't be doing sampling during the excavations. The excavations will occur after the additional sampling has been done. And then the management levels that will be in place that I'm going to describe in just a minute, the dust management levels will be based on the data that we've collected so far, in addition to the additional characterization we're going to do. I know it probably is difficult to understand because I haven't presented the material yet. MS. WELLS: Just hang on and let her get a little further along. And then come back if you have further -- a further question about it. Let's see if we can get a little further along. So, maybe some of your questions may be answered. And if not, we'll come back. Go ahead, Amy. MS. CHURCH: Okay. The basis for the Airborne Asbestos Management and Monitoring Plan that will be used during the excavation activities is management of activities to prevent exposure. Our most important thing that we want to do is prevent dust from being generated in the first place because that's what will prevent exposure to airborne asbestos. And we'll also be doing -- implementing a monitoring program, along with the management, to assess the effectiveness of the techniques that we have implemented. And there will be action levels built into the monitoring program that will trigger upgrades in management technique, if necessary. I'm going to explain all of this in detail. MS. WELLS: You're going to say what management techniques mean in a minute? MS. CHURCH: Exactly. MR. JOSEPH: Can we pause here a while and ask some question during this process here? MS. CHURCH: I'm just about done, Joe. So, the management techniques that I'm going -- we're going to be implementing, there's three different levels, based on the amount of asbestos contamination that has been detected in the soil. And on the next slide, I'll describe those in detail. And the monitoring program will involve meteorological stations that will be set up at the site in order to understand prevailing wind direction and other factors that may be pertinent to the monitoring process. It will include the use of particular aerosol monitors which are dust monitors. Those will be put around the excavation so we can monitor what levels might be emanating from the site. And action levels. Based on the data that we get from the monitoring, there are action levels built into the program that will trigger upgrades in the management level. So, further control. There are just two more overheads. So, the management levels and techniques breakdown like this: Level one, as we refer to it in the text of the plan itself, will be implemented in areas where data accumulated indicates no visible asbestos is present. And the management technique will include water sprays to keep the soil moist to prevent particles from becoming airborne. Level two will be implemented in areas where the data set indicates trace through three percent asbestos has been detected in the soil. And management techniques will include water sprays and fencing. The fencing will be put up around the excavations. And they will be supplemented with boards or fabric that prevents wind from blowing across the area that's exposed. And that will be used in addition to keeping the soil moist using the water sprays. And level three will be implemented in areas where the data setting indicates there's four percent or greater asbestos in the soil. And that will -- those management techniques include the first two, water sprays and fencing. And then in addition, water sprays with additives. What the additives do, although at this point, we haven't chosen the particular one that we are going to use, in general, there are a class of additives that when you spray them on the soil with the water, they create a crust on top of the soil that prevents air or wind from coming into contact with the soil. It's a barrier between the soil and the elements of exposure. It also prevents runoff and erosion of exposed soil. I actually didn't tell the truth. I still have two more overheads. Sorry about that. Additional management techniques that will be used throughout the program will be paving of surfaces that are frequently driven over by vehicles. Wheel-wash stations. Those are placed at the areas where vehicles will exit the site that have been driving around. And since we don't want them to leave the site with any dirt or soil on their tires and undercarriage, it will be washed off. As I just said, we'll spray exposed soil with the additives -- with the water with the additives. In addition to paving, we can also add bitumen or sand to road surfaces. That decreases the possibility of dust being generated. As I said in the last slide, we'll always be maintaining soil moisture by having water -- water trucks on the site spraying down water -- spraying down soil. And stockpiled soil that's not going to be moved from the site, you know, within a certain length of time, will be sprayed with the water sprays with the additives, covered with polysheeting or heavy tarps and sandbagged to prevent the potential for dust to be generated off of those soil piles. And finally -- that's the gist of the Airborne Asbestos Management and Monitoring Plan. And we just wanted to remind you at this time that as plans proceed and develop and become firm for development at the site, there will be an opportunity for you to provide further comment. And we have, as we expressed the last time we were together, other management plans that will be written that will firm up as the development plans proceed, like soil management plans. And you will have an opportunity to comment on those plans, as well. Thank you. MS. WELLS: Okay, now, you were -- Camilo, you're going to have to stay with me. People back in the back are -- the woman on the right wanted to get in. So, I'm respectfully asking you to say your name and your address because it helps with the public record, which is your record. And it helps the transcription to be accurate in terms of reflecting participation. So, thank you. MS. PATIL: My name is Madhvi Patil, and I just fail to understand how one can propose to do all these things without having absolutely no idea as to how you're going to do it. Even high school students cannot do that. And I -- I really do not understand this. And you've kept mentioning that you've characterized this -- the asbestos. And as the previous speaker said, if you find really high levels, would Grace stop building? Would Grace stop doing anything that would disturb the soil? MS. WELLS: Who wants to field that question? John? MR. WARDZEL: Well, speaking on behalf -- you know, speaking from Grace, I mean, I'm concerned about the 400 Grace employees that sit right in the building. And there's another 200 employees here. There are 600 people here for ten or 12 hours a day, or at least eight hours a day that, obviously, I'm personally responsible for the safety of all these people and that if there is asbestos in the air that could result in the potential harm of people. Our first priority is to protect -- protect our employees, in addition to, you know, our concern about the welfare of the community. So -- MS. PATIL: You have eight hours a day. We have 24-hours a day every single day. We have children from infant ages to all the way older ages. So, that's a slight difference, too. DR. CROUCH: Can I just make the point that everything being talked about here is hypothetical. There has been absolutely no asbestos -- there has been absolutely no asbestos whatsoever detected in any air samples so far. [Inaudible discussion at the back of the room] MS. WELLS: Okay, okay. One at a time. DR. CROUCH: This detection level is 3,000 times lower than is allowed in schools. MS. WELLS: Camilo, next person. Thank you. MR. PETER [INAUDIBLE]: And I live on Sargent Street. Two questions. Number one, to what depth is the soil contaminated with asbestos? And number two, how far from the actual construction site do you plan to put air quality monitoring stations? MS. WELLS: Okay. Thank you. MS. CHURCH: Well, I think you can -- can you hear me? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. MS. CHURCH: Okay. The sampling that we've done so far, when we did a preliminary program in May of 1998, and we took samples to a depth of 12 feet and asbestos was detected at eight feet. Now, the program that we just did, we took samples to a depth of four feet because that's the depth that the proposed development -- to the depth that the proposed development would disturb the soil. What was your second question? I'm sorry. MR. PETER [INAUDIBLE]: The second question was what distances from the actual construction site are you going to place air monitoring stations? MS. CHURCH: Well, we'll be varying distances because the site is -- well, we'll be placing them on the W. R. Grace property. And since the site is rectangular, there will be some that will very close to the excavation. And there will be some that will be further away. Those are the high-volume samplers. Now, the sampling that we're going to do as part of the management plan there will be air- sampling collection units right next to the excavation. MS. WELLS: Okay. This gentleman, and then we'll come to you [indicating]. MR. DOBLER: My name is Paul Dobler. I live at 47 Magoun Street. I have a question about your sampling. What period of time is going to pass from when you finish taking the sample to when you have it analyzed? How soon will you know the results of your air sampling? MS. CHURCH: Well -- air sampling? MR. DOBLER: Yeah, your PCM air sampling you're going to take at the perimeter during construction. MS. CHURCH: Well, the PCM sampling that we'll do as part of the management plan, where people are actually wearing the air filters that are working in and around the excavations, will be done on a 24- hour basis. Just like we did for the last program. The dust monitors that will be at the site give you real-time readings of the amount of dust that's in the air. MR. DOBLER: Really? MS. CHURCH: Yeah. Then we'll also be collecting air samplers through stationary air -- air sampling units. And I think the fastest turn-around time we could get on that is 24 hours, but I don't know that for sure. MR. DOBLER: My next question is: Will the air samples be posted in a publicly accessible place? MS. CHURCH: We'll write that down as something that we'll consider, to publicly post the air samples. MS. WELLS: We're tracking all your questions over here and all your requests. MR. DOBLER: One last question. You just mentioned that the sampling took place at a depth of four feet because you thought that was the depth at which the soil would be disturbed? MS. CHURCH: To a depth of four feet, yes. MR. DOBLER: I -- I kind of disagree with that. A hotel building sits much deeper in the ground than four feet. So does an office building. MS. CHURCH: They're all going to be constructed with slab on -- [Tape change] MS. WELLS: Go ahead. She's all set. MS. GURAIN: My name is Denise Gurain. I live at 125 Montgomery Street. I don't have a question. I have a statement that I want to make sure gets entered into the record, which was why I was very happy to wait for the tape change. I want to make this statement in response to a question that was answered several questions ago by this gentleman here sitting in the center [indicating]. And I'm afraid I don't remember your name. I found that you were answering in a fairly obviously dismissive manner a question that was raised by one of my neighbors in connection with the possible exposure to asbestos. And your response to her was very dismissively, in my view at any rate, that we were getting -- exercised -- this was much ado about nothing because we were talking about absolutely no asbestos in the air at this point. Unfortunately, one thing that we seem to be glossing over here is that we're here to discuss development and lots of -- many, many cubic yard of soil being turned over. And that soil shows some very significant hits, whether it's being tested by the community or by the City of Cambridge or by W. R. Grace. Consequently, I think that the record should show that the concerns that have been raised by my neighbor are not at all trivial and not the least bit insignificant. Thank you. [Applause] DR. CROUCH: Thank you. Very good. I don't mean to dismiss things. I just want to point out this is the situation currently. What is intended by the monitoring is to try and see if in monitoring we can see asbestos when dust -- when you start turning over soil. So, the main problem at the moment that we have in estimating what is going to happen is that we don't know what happens when you turn over soil. All the soil turnover so far, the small amounts, has not given us any indication of asbestos in air, even at these very low detection limits. And that -- I mean, our whole problem with assessing what happens here is what does happen when you turn over larger amounts. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're not guinea pigs. DR. CROUCH: No, you're not guinea pigs, and that's the point. That's the point of the monitoring to make sure that you don't -- you aren't guinea pigs. So that -- MR. JOSEPH: If you continue in this line, you haven't understood the point. We're not guinea pigs, and we don't want to be treated like it. So, in other words, we don't want to be a test case for your equipment and your samples, period. If the current situation as you have characterized it is no risk, then leave it. MS. WELLS: We're going to Mike and then here [indicating]. And we'll keep coming round. So, just... MR. NAKAGAWA: Continuing on this, you mentioned something about -- well, my first point is you said something about 3,000 times better than schools or something like that. What did that have to do -- how did that fit into the situation here? DR. CROUCH: I'm just saying that that's the sort of level we're looking at. MR. NAKAGAWA: Where? DR. CROUCH: Outside. In the outside air. MR. NAKAGAWA: Outside air. How about in the soil? DR. CROUCH: The soil, there's no comparison there. MR. NAKAGAWA: But you're -- right now, we're not disturbing the soil. So, there's nothing in the air. So, yes, that's true. We're talking about putting a bulldozer across the dirt here. DR. CROUCH: Yes. MR. NAKAGAWA: Now, will that still be 3,000 times better than the schools? DR. CROUCH: I hope so. I doubt -- I doubt that we'll manage quite that, but I hope it will be quite low. The aim will be to keep it that low. MR. NAKAGAWA: Well, I think that's the concern of the neighbors. Not the current status. DR. CROUCH: Right. MR. NAKAGAWA: The point that I really wanted to make, regarding this -- the map here [indicating]. You're saying that those are all the places that asbestos was located? MS. CHURCH: Uh-huh. MR. NAKAGAWA: What about your TEM results? MS. CHURCH: [No response.] MR. NAKAGAWA: Those are not on there. MS. CHURCH: Yeah. I apologize. They're not on there. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why aren't they on there? MS. CHURCH: It was my oversight. MS. WELLS: How many of them were there, Amy? MS. CHURCH: There were five detections of trace, and two percent detections. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you want to know why we want another meeting. MS. WELLS: It hasn't been ruled out. Let's see, where was I coming to you [indicating]? MR. NAKAGAWA: I'm not done. I'm not done. [Applause] MS. WELLS: You have another question? MR. NAKAGAWA: [Displaying overhead] This is the map of where asbestos hits are in red. And it includes the additional data that we've just recently got from the neighborhood groups. And the TEMs are marked over in those various locations. It's beginning to look like a lot. And the numbers that they present in their report, they're saying 5.8 percent of samples, but we're coming up with 17 and a half percent of the locations. And that's pretty significant. I was wondering how much asbestos do you think is in the soil based on this? Have you analyzed -- I mean, there's asbestos all over the place in some amount to some depth. Has anyone looked at how much soil -- how much asbestos there is on the site? MR. STIMPSON: Yeah, it's very difficult to sort of take this data and extrapolate a quantity of asbestos, or the number of fibers of asbestos or however you want to look at the data set. I think a classic example of that is if you look at the split samples and the degree of reproducibility that exists in the split samples, you'll come to a conclusion, at least I've come to the conclusion that the fibers in the soil are not uniformly distributed in the vicinity of where we're sampling. It's more of a random location in various areas. And that's sort of why we've decided to take the proactive approach to mitigate any potential generation of dust when we do our construction activities. Because, I mean, I believe that we have sufficient information to realize that there is a possibility there will be asbestos in dust that might get generated during the construction activities. And our goal is to not have any dust during the construction activities. And that's why we've laid this program out. MR. NAKAGAWA: But you said it's just kind of randomly distributed through there. So, what you're saying is that even within a given sample, you don't know if soil next to that is going to have asbestos at various levels. So, how can you say that you're not -- you're going to apply the lowest level of monitoring to the areas that you just happened to not find any in your samples? MR. STIMPSON: Well, that's why we're suggesting doing additional testing before we actually develop the monitoring plan. MR. NAKAGAWA: But you're not doing additional soil testing, are you? MR. STIMPSON: Yes. There will be additional soil testing done before the construction activity in those areas that will be disturbed. MR. NAKAGAWA: Only in -- are you going to do a reevaluation of all the areas or just around the areas where the detections have been found already, as indicated in your documents? MR. STIMPSON: Currently, we're going to use the existing data that we found to date. The criteria for doing additional testing is in the plan. Right now, it says that if there's no visible asbestos, we will do no additional characterization in the area that gets disturbed. If there is a trace to three percent, we will do additional -- a trace or above, we will do additional characterization. If you have some suggestions about an increased level of testing, we're willing to listen to that, and even a sampling approach. MR. NAKAGAWA: Well, but you just said that it's kind of random on where you're going to find it. So, just because you haven't found it doesn't mean it's not next to it or anywhere else. MR. STIMPSON: Correct. And that's why -- MR. NAKAGAWA: You're not going to do any additional sampling unless you found it already? MR. STIMPSON: No. That's why we have a proactive program to manage dust, regardless of what we found. There will be -- we're proposing that there be no excavation activities, regardless of whether we found asbestos or not, that don't control dust. MR. NAKAGAWA: But you're claiming that this is -- your -- the comprehensive site assessment phase of this program -- comprehensive site assessment, you're not going to find out the extent that these hits are -- like how far they spread or any characterization. You're only going to do that before you start digging. And when you do that, if you don't start at the areas that have the asbestos, it means you don't know where the asbestos is. You -- when this plan was implemented, you originally were not going to test heavily in Zone 2, half of Zone 4, which is listed as Zone 3 in the previous plan, or Zone 5 because you said there was no reason to believe that there was asbestos in the soil in those locations. But I see a lot of asbestos hits in those locations. And you're not addressing what that means. MR. STIMPSON: I believe we are. If you listen to what we're saying, we're proposing that before the site gets developed, we will take to the - - number one, the development plan will be put together in a way that minimizes the areas where we'll have intrusive activities. There already is one development area that will not have intrusive activities at all in it that I believe is going to happen. And that's the area closest to the head house. The development plan hasn't been created yet. So, I can't really sit here and say how much exposure there's going to be. But we all, I think, agree that if we don't disturb the soil, then we don't have to worry about the possible exposure to asbestos that might get into the air. So, once we have the development plan finalized and we know what areas are going to be disposed, and we know the construction procedures that are going to be used, where the haul roads are going to be, we will be putting together a plan that takes these criteria that we're proposing and puts them into a document that lays out exactly where we're going to be doing the air quality monitoring, where we're going to be doing additional testing before the construction starts, the soil management aspects of it. And all that information will be provided to the neighborhood for review, comment, and constructive input. MR. NAKAGAWA: So, that means you won't exit Phase II, the Comprehensive Site Assessment, until that time, until you've analyzed the soil? MR. STIMPSON: What we're proposing is that we have completed enough Phase II level of characterization for MCP purposes to evaluate the risks associated with the asbestos in the site as it currently exists. And we will put in place programs to control the future exposures. MR. NAKAGAWA: Your initial -- your final asbestos sampling plan said [reading], "The sampling methodology outlined in this program is not designed to determine if concentrated levels of asbestos are present at the site, but rather to provide data necessary to evaluate current risk of exposure to surfacial soils at the site." Where is the test to find the concentrated levels of asbestos on the site? MR. STIMPSON: We do not believe that there exists concentrated levels of asbestos at this site. MR. NAKAGAWA: Seven percent by your data, 20 percent by some of our samples. That's pretty high concentrations I would think. MR. STIMPSON: Well, I'm sorry. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "concentrated." High percentages in -- [Laughter] MR. STIMPSON: There's two ways to interpret "concentrated." There could be large areas of raw asbestos, which is what I assumed he meant. Or there could be high concentrations. I assumed the former. If you're asking us to look for high levels of concentrated raw asbestos in the ground, I do not believe they're present. And I don't believe we'd ever find them in advance of construction activities. That's why -- MR. NAKAGAWA: You found them. MR. STIMPSON: I believe that if you look at the data, you'll find that in a sample that size you had 20 percent, if you want to use the neighborhood data. And you look at the sample that we had next to it, and it had non-detect. MR. NAKAGAWA: So, how do you explain that? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You don't ignore our data. MR. STIMPSON: We aren't ignoring your data. We're saying that it is very small and isolated. MR. NAKAGAWA: But diffuse. It's all over the site. It's everywhere on your site. MR. STIMPSON: I don't believe that that is necessarily -- there are little areas -- little isolated areas that have asbestos. It's not -- MR. NAKAGAWA: How can you say that? You have not characterized those hits, and you're not planning to before you end Phase II. MR. STIMPSON: Let's look at it differently. If we were to get more data, what would we do differently? MR. NAKAGAWA: Well, you're -- right now, you're saying you're not -- you're going to apply the lowest level of protection until you release a large amount of asbestos and find that you've released it. MR. STIMPSON: That is not what we're saying. We said -- MR. NAKAGAWA: That's what you -- you said you're not going -- you're going to apply the lowest particulate monitoring in areas where you've not found asbestos. And you will think about increasing it if for over an hour you've exceeded certain limits that you've set. MR. STIMPSON: What we're saying is we're going to do a dust control program that I believe is adequate of controlling the dust. Water -- MR. NAKAGAWA: You did an adequate job removing the soil -- or the tank -- underground storage tank last time also, where you did nothing. MR. STIMPSON: I believe that the water -- wetting the soil will be sufficient to control dust. We have put belts and suspenders into the program to go -- in the event that our belief isn't true, to upgrade that program to give it even more protective. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What does "our belief" mean? What is -- MS. WELLS: Wait, wait, wait until we -- we need to hear you on the mike because we can't catch the question. Take her the mike, please. MR. NAKAGAWA: I'm not done. I'm not -- MS. WELLS: We'll come back, Mike. We've got two hours, okay. MR. WEITZMAN: I'd like to continue hearing Mike, hopefully. MS. WELLS: We will. We will. We will. We just need to break it up a little bit. MR. KAMMAN: I'd like to comment on the -- what is perhaps a rhetorical question. My name is Daniel Kamman, 69 Harvey Street. You said what would we do differently if we did -- if Grace did sampling in the areas where there were no detects. I think by your plan as shown on the overhead if you found a detect, you would -- in addition to doing the wetting down, you would put a wind screen. If you found a higher level of detect, in addition to putting the wind screen and the wetting down, you would put the wetting down with the additive. Is that not correct? MR. STIMPSON: That's correct. And we're going to do that additional testing in the areas that are going to be disturbed. MR. KAMMAN: Maybe we're not clear on what you're saying. Are you saying that in the areas that are going to be disturbed, even if there were no hits prior, you will do additional testing? MR. STIMPSON: The program as currently laid out does not do that. If -- okay, if the neighborhood is requesting that we reconsider that because of your concern, please ask us. MR. KAMMAN: Okay. That would be my request. My original question was a clarification question and also a question for information. Amy, you talked about the personal air quality monitors that would be worn during construction. Is this going to -- is -- what percentage of the construction workers will be wearing these, roughly? I mean, is it like five people out of the whole site or every person on the site or what? MS. CHURCH: We haven't -- we actually haven't determined the number of people that will be wearing personal air samplers. MR. KAMMAN: Okay. Next question, and I'm not really expecting an answer here, but hopefully you could give it at a later date. What would be the additional cost for using the highest level of remediation; that is, the spraying with the additive over the entire site versus as currently planned, assuming that you didn't have to change anything as a result of the air quality monitoring? MR. STIMPSON: That's another thing we could give you once we figure out exactly what the development configuration is going to be. MR. KAMMAN: Could you provide a ballpark figure, you know, now or in a week or two weeks for a given assumed area. You know, like, the maximum area that you expect to develop or the, you know, the median area -- average area you expect to develop? MR. STIMPSON: Yeah, we can do that. MR. KAMMAN: Okay. Thank you. And last question -- MS. WELLS: Let's be sure we got that request. I'm not -- MR. KAMMAN: Okay. The question is: If the maximum level of remediation, which is the additive, was applied over the entire site that is going to be disturbed, what would be the additional dollar cost compared to what is currently being proposed. MR. STIMPSON: Was that the entire site or just an assumed area? MR. KAMMAN: The assumed area of development. MR. STIMPSON: Okay. MR. KAMMAN: Yeah. The area that would be excavated. MS. WELLS: Thank you for repeating. Now, let me just -- just pause a moment. We have several people who have been waiting. Mike, I know you've got more, and we're going to come back to you. So, don't anybody despair that we're coming back. But there are several people who are anxious to get in [indicating]. This gentleman and then there are at least two women at the back and many, many more. But let's -- MR. KAMMAN: Can I ask one quick question which, again, I'm not expecting an answer now but at a later date. Based on the statistics from the sampling results, could you give us an idea of the risk that you would expect -- the statistical risk you would expect in -- or expectation of getting a hit in the areas that there currently hasn't shown to be a hit? MS. WELLS: Are you clear about the question, Wes? MR. STIMPSON: Yeah. You want to know if I have some idea as to what percentage or something like that we may find additional asbestos. I really can't do that. It's -- as you can see, the data -- the data may have a little bit of trend to it depending on how you -- how you look at it and what you do with it. My personal opinion is that the areas that had past development activities on it are the ones that are showing more potential asbestos in the soil. The areas such as the site in Zone 4 that has the cluster. There's actually material that was moved there from an area that had previous development in it. MR. KAMMAN: But that's not statistically - - MR. STIMPSON: Yeah. I have no way of giving you a statistical evaluation of the data. MR. KAMMAN: Thank you. MS. WELLS: Okay. I'm going to go to the - - oh, I'm sorry, to you and then to the two people in the back. And many more people, but we can't line them all up. MR. YODER: Yeah. Ralph Yoder on Rindge Avenue. I understand that there's at least three different types of asbestos. And there may be more than that. I don't know. But at least those three have been found on the site; is that right? And one of them is quite a bit more dangerous than the others. And I wonder where the different types of asbestos have been sited and what are the safe levels? MS. CHURCH: Using one type of analysis, the polarized light microscopy, two different types of asbestos have been identified: amosite and chrysotile. Using the transmission electron microscopy, which is much more accurate because it actually identifies the asbestos mineral based on elemental makeup, which is like a, you know, a DNA signature -- DR. CROUCH: Actually, it's a crystal structure. It's not only the -- it -- the elemental makeup is very similar. It's the crystal structure of the mineral. MS. CHURCH: So, using the TEM analysis, it gives you that level of information. The only type of asbestos that has been identified is chrysotile. DR. CROUCH: Now, there are some indications that different types of asbestos are different in relative potency for causing various effects, principally, lung cancer and mesothelioma. However, they are only indications. If one does formal analysis of the data that are available, one cannot, in fact, show such effects. Various organizations currently have different -- slightly different standards for the different types. But the data behind that is very, very thin. MS. WELLS: We have two women in the back who have been waiting a long time, and Joe, you're on the list. Then we'll come to some others of you. MS. ARSENEAULT: Hi. Maria Arseneault, 8 Clay Street. You -- over and over and over when you're answering our questions, you keep saying "it's my belief," "it's our belief." That doesn't mean a thing to us. I want to hear data. This is based on data, including our neighborhood data, which keeps being put aside and almost referred to as really -- really not good data, which is not the case. That's the first thing. I don't want to hear "my belief," because that means nothing to me. Secondly, you have a proposed plan. That means you have an idea how much soil is going to be disturbed. Is anyone going to answer that question? MR. STIMPSON: We are acknowledging the fact that there is data other than the Grace data, and we're using it in the plans. As you can see as Amy laid out, we are factoring that data in. So, when I say "my belief," it's my interpretation of the data and it's my professional judgment as to what is going to happen when we do the excavation or when we do the construction activities. We have -- there's no way to have hard data on that because, truthfully, we're at the cutting edge of the -- the practice as far as evaluating this level of asbestos in soil. So, thus, the reason why we're going to a very conservative approach to prevent a dust generation and airborne asbestos. I forgot your second question. I'm sorry. MS. ARSENEAULT: I'd like to know, since you have a proposed plan, then someone must have the answer as to how much of that area is going to be touched or disturbed. MR. STIMPSON: Thanks. The proposed plan right now just has the locations of the buildings in concept. No one has gone through and done a site grading plan, you know, what the final grades are going to be when the buildings are constructed. They really haven't factored in the other requirements that are going to be necessary to develop the property, as far as the flood plain and wetlands issues and those sorts of things. And that's -- we're going to need to have a grading plan that shows the final grades to determine -- and then we can compare them with the existing grades. And at that point, we'll be able to answer the question as to whether we dig or whether we fill. MS. ARSENEAULT: So, then we'll have another meeting? MR. STIMPSON: There will be additional input from the neighborhood once that plan is put together. MS. ARSENEAULT: You were talking about concern for your employees. They better be Cambridge employees because they're going to have walk there. There's no way they can drive in there. It will take them an hour. Without any -- anything being built there now, it takes me 45 minutes just to come from Fresh Pond during traffic hour down my street. So, that's another issue that you need to consider, as well. MS. WELLS: Okay. Thank you. MS. LOPES: My name is -- my name is Christine Lopes. I'm the legislative aid to Representative Alice Wolf. I just had a question, a clarifying point about the beginning data. I think it was the first or second slide. And I think that's where everybody is talking about the data between the City of Cambridge, Grace, and the neighborhood group. Could you explain to me why there was such a significant difference between, like, seven percent and 15? I could understand, like, a three or four percent difference, but it seems like a doubling. And I don't know what the process was, if it was two different studies done or -- if someone could just explain that, please. And I'm not a science -- I'm not a science major; so, in layman's terms, please. MR. STIMPSON: The -- the test procedures that were used by the -- first of all, the tests were done by two different labs. The test procedures were the same procedure. The same methodology was -- was followed. We have checked with the labs, and the labs have assured us, both our lab and the neighborhood lab and the City of Cambridge lab, which happens to be the same lab, that they did follow the procedure. And that -- this is the result we have. The lab -- our lab is attributing it to what's called non-homogeneity, which means the asbestos fibers are not uniformly distributed through the samples. And even though we took the sample out of the same bowl and we mixed it up slightly to blend it together, there -- some fibers are in some grains -- grain of sand, and others are not. And that's what they're attributing it to. DR. CROUCH: Let me add to that. If you look at how the sampling -- how the sampling and how the analysis is done, you go and dig a nice scoop of earth out to get the sample and put it in your bowl and mix it up. But when it finally comes down to looking under the microscope, you take about a pinch of that. So, you can easily get differences within the bowl between each pinch of soil. And that is, we think, what is happening on these samples, why you're seeing such a large difference. Each pinch is different. MS. WELLS: Okay. We'll try to get to some additional -- MS. PATIL: Madhvi from Madison Avenue. I can't remember what you mentioned at the last meeting, but when the tank was excavated in March, was there monitoring for airborne asbestos at that time? MR. STIMPSON: No. MS. PATIL: So, how can you tell me that there was zero asbestos detected? MR. STIMPSON: The statement that has been made is that out of 24 samples, one sample detected asbestos. MS. PATIL: Now, this is the air that one of you was telling me was less than 3,000 times in schools. MR. STIMPSON: Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood your question. MS. PATIL: Airborne asbestos. MR. STIMPSON: Yeah, the -- there has -- what Amy was describing is a sampling program that was undertaken during the time we were collecting the soil samples for this program. There were ten locations there where we actually took air samples over an eight-hour day. That was not done at the time the tank was being removed. It was done during the exploration program. MR. JOSEPH: Yeah, my name is Joe Joseph. I live at 20 Kassul Park. I feel like Phil Donahue here. Let's see. I would like a clarification if I could, from Amy. Let's see. You had -- in describing the types of asbestos that were found so far on the site, and I assume you're talking about all the sampling that's been done, you had mentioned amosite. And you mentioned chrysotile. Were those the only types that were found on the site? MS. CHURCH: Those are the only types that W. R. Grace analysis detected. MR. JOSEPH: Are you sure? MS. CHURCH: To my memory. MR. JOSEPH: Because I seem to recall, and I think it was in your data, that that area there where the remediation experiments were done years ago [indicating], that there was a hit of crocidolite there. It may have been a trace hit, but it's there. So, I would ask that you go back and look at your data. MS. CHURCH: Okay. Thank you, Joe. MR. JOSEPH: Yeah. Let's see. In addition, I have been asking, and this will be the third or the fourth time that I've asked you in one public way or another, whether or not you're going to do any sampling around Building 28 and why if you are going to build in Zone 5, you haven't increased the number of samples to better characterize. Now, there is a hit of asbestos in Zone 5. I believe it was above trace. And you've done nothing over on Building 28. Now, Building 28 is not in your current plans, but Building 28 is part of the original facility. And there is no reason in the world why that should not have been tested as well. The last -- the only thing I can recall Grace or your agent, Haley and Aldrich, having said anything about Building 28 is that you are deferring the question for some reason. I don't know why. But I'd like to know. And rather than get a -- some sort of a question that no one can answer or that goes no where, I would like to know whether or not you intend to test Building 28, yes or no. And I would also like to know if you are going to build in Zone 5, under what basis you would consider that to be adequate sampling if your intention is to build there. The whole issue here is to characterize the site. One thing I -- one observation before I let you answer those questions I'd like to make is what Michael was talking about before, and I think what he's trying to illustrate is this whole process is absurd. This meeting should only have been to discuss your site characterization. You should not have jumped to talking about management of the site. You're presuming that this is a developable site, and you should not make that presumption because there is no agreement as to the characterization of the site. The whole idea of public involvement is to go through these matters and go through them as thoroughly as we possibly can and to come to some sort of understanding. So far, the environmental protection, most of it that has occurred at this site, has been by us, the neighbors. And what we would like to see is we would like to see these things, instead of railroading and jumping to the absurd conclusion, "No, we can't tell you how much asbestos or how much soil we're going to disturb," and yet, "Yeah, we do have some idea what we're going to develop" and "Yeah, we really don't so we can't answer that." Instead of jumping to that and putting yourself in that absurd position, take it one piece at a time. Do the characterization. Do it adequately; do it comprehensively. You haven't done that. You haven't even produced a map for the public which includes all of your results. That's ridiculous. And it's not fair for us to be in the position of having to constantly challenge you and get you to hold the highest standard. There's no reason why you shouldn't. You have all the resources in the world. You're an international corporation. There's no reason in the world why we have to stand here and tell you, "Look, you missed this. You missed that." We shouldn't have to do that. We really shouldn't. [Applause] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Joe, can you point out the two areas on the map you're talking about? The ones you asked your question about. MR. JOSEPH: [Indicating] Well, the areas were -- well, Building 28 is on Whittemore Avenue. Now, there's no reason in the world why we shouldn't test there because that's right in a residential zone. MS. WELLS: Come around, Amy. Just come point. MS. CHURCH: That's okay. Joe will do it. MR. JOSEPH: Well, as probably everybody in this room knows, Whittemore Avenue is over here [indicating]. And the building is probably in this area here. Maybe a little bit further up [indicating]. It's an old stand-alone brick building on the opposite side of Whittemore Avenue. That was part of your original facility, and it should be tested, period. And there shouldn't be any -- any exotic reasons as to why you can't or you have to think about it some more. The other zone that we're talking about here is Zone 5. Only half of the zone is tested. This whole half, which somehow doesn't appear on the map but which is part of your site, has no testing done. And it should be. And as you can see, there is a hit of asbestos here [indicating]. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And that's where the hotel is going. MR. JOSEPH: So, what I would ask is that you stop this little charade of jumping into the process when you're not ready -- jumping into the development process. It's fine to talk about schemes. But rather than that, concentrate on better characterization, come to an agreement with these neighbors. We're not unreasonable. All we want is for everything to be considered. And we want the big picture, and we want it crystal clear. [Applause] MS. WELLS: Hang on just a second and let's -- I beg your pardon. Let's -- [Inaudible discussion among audience members] MS. WELLS: Let's take a pause for a moment because -- because Joe asked -- Joe asked two questions. MR. WEITZMAN: I don't think anyone heard what the gentleman said. He didn't have the mike. Can we give him the mike? MS. WELLS: Yes, hang on a second. We'll give him the mike. I understand. We have two questions to be answered and then we'll try to take it as orderly as we can. I know this is very difficult for everybody. Please understand. And we're trying to give everybody a chance. Are you prepared to make response to -- MR. STIMPSON: The Building 28 question is -- we're -- we, truthfully, are still assembling historical information on whether or not we would believe that that is necessary to test there. We have your request, Joe, and we'll consider it. MR. JOSEPH: It's not a request. Just do it. It's part of the site. Test it. It's a simple thing. Is there a reason why you wouldn't? You have no historical justification, no historical explanation for the amount of asbestos you've discovered on that site. Nothing you described in the processes that you say accounted for that account for somewhere between a half million pounds and 1.2 million pounds of asbestos on that site. So -- so, why -- what I don't understand is why would you balk at that? Just put some borings in and test it. MS. WELLS: Okay. MR. STIMPSON: Thank you. [Applause] MR. STIMPSON: What was the second question, Joe? MS. WELLS: There was a second question, I think. MR. JOSEPH: Zone 5. MR. STIMPSON: Yeah, Zone 5, under the management plan, if there's intrusive activities, we'll have additional testing done. MS. WELLS: Okay. Now, we have -- MR. JOSEPH: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You're planning to build there. That is an intrusive activity, period. It's intrusive. So, test. MR. STIMPSON: We will. MR. JOSEPH: When? MR. STIMPSON: Once we have the construction -- MR. JOSEPH: After you intrude. After you intrude, right? MR. STIMPSON: Once we have the construction plan that indicates the areas that will be dug up, we will do testing. MR. JOSEPH: No, no. Do it now. Fully characterize the site first and then go to your building plan. MS. WELLS: Okay, there are several people -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That makes a lot of sense, you know. [Inaudible discussion among audience members] MS. WELLS: Okay -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You guys have $5 million. MS. BURKE: That's Phase II. You cannot move onto Phase III until you characterize the site. That is part of characterizing the site. That site is -- that Zone 5 is planning to be developed. Building 28 is one block away from -- less than one block away from my house and a number of neighbors in this room. MS. WELLS: Could you please identify yourself before you go to -- MS. BURKE: My name is Lisa Burke. I live at 20 Kassul Park. MS. WELLS: Thank you, Lisa. All right, there are a number of people who have been wanting to speak who haven't had a chance, before we go to second questions from a lot of people. Let's see where you are. This lady has been very patient [indicating]. These two gentlemen here [indicating], and the gentleman who made a point a minute ago about something, I think he said "railroad ties," we'll go to him. That will be the fourth person, okay. MS. MIETH: I have two questions and two comments. Is it reasonable to expect that asbestos fibers -- MS. WELLS: I'm sorry, did you identify yourself? MS. MIETH: I'm sorry. No, I didn't. Carolyn Mieth, 15 Brookford Street in North Cambridge. MS. WELLS: It's all right. We understand. MS. MIETH: Is it reasonable to expect that asbestos fibers might be found in the groundwater on the site? Has it -- has the groundwater been tested for asbestos? That's my first question. The second one is -- MS. WELLS: Do you want to get an answer to that first so you can -- MS. MIETH: Well, I can go through them and then they can take it over. MS. WELLS: It's probably easier. MS. MIETH: Easier, fine. MR. STIMPSON: That's part of the Phase II program that Amy laid out in her presentation. We are proposing to test the groundwater in the central portion of the site. MS. MIETH: Okay. Just for clarification, the definition of "characterization" means the taking of samples and their analyses; is that what that -- what characterization of the site means, for the uninitiated? MR. STIMPSON: Characterization is to -- as it's used in the MCP is to obtain sufficient data to evaluate whether or not there is a condition of significant risk associated with the release of the contamination. MS. MIETH: Thank you. I feel that the fencing on the three levels of management, that there's very little difference between three percent and four percent, and I really don't find that fencing is going to prevent, even with the watering, will prevent airborne asbestos particles. And I guess I would like to see that you use the additive as well, unless significant concentration of the additives pose some kind of problem. And, lastly, I'd like to return to the woman who questioned you on if a high concentration of asbestos is found during -- during the development phase -- and to me some of the sites that have 15 percent sounds high to me -- that the question was never really answered as to what steps you would take. Would you stop development? Would you step up the management of it? Cart it off site right away? I really didn't hear an answer that if you -- what would happen if you dug into the soil and you found high concentrations of asbestos? What would you do, specifically? MS. WELLS: Okay. Thank you. MR. STIMPSON: High concentrations of asbestos in the soil will be managed with the level 3 dust control preventive measures and confirm that they are not getting airborne with the monitoring program. MS. WELLS: The two gentlemen there and then we'll come to you [indicating]. I'm sorry, then to the gentleman who is shaking his head, but I'll come to him anyway. MR. BRANDON: Hi, my name is Michael Brandon. I live at 27 Seven Pines Avenue. I had a few questions and sort of some comments, too. I wanted to follow up on a question that Dan over here had asked about the additional cost of using the most aggressive level of airborne asbestos management. I think what's in there is, is the reason that you're not proposing that method, the most cautious method, because of cost? Could you just use that uniformly throughout the excavated areas? MR. STIMPSON: Yeah. No, that's not the reason. The -- I -- the watering of the soil done proactively during the construction activity should control the dust. In the event for some reason that doesn't control the dust, then we felt going to additives in the water would -- would definitely control the dust. So, it was more of the fact that we believe that the watering program will control the dust, or wind barriers and watering program will control the dust. And the need to go to special mixtures and additives and the concerns that might be associated with the additives wasn't warranted. It wasn't based on cost. MS. WELLS: Okay? MR. BRANDON: I'm not sure I understand that. You said you're using the most conservative approach. And I would just reiterate something that was said last -- last meeting, for the record, that I believe the most conservative approach, given the high levels of asbestos here -- that are -- that we know to be on the site, would be not to develop the site, certainly to the extent that is being proposed. [Applause] MR. BRANDON: Clearly, Grace is not going to do that. You know, you claim that you're concerned about your employees and the public. If that's indeed true, then I don't understand why you wouldn't, you know, take every step, even if it did cost more money, to take the most cautious approach in controlling and ensuring that no dust at all affects the construction workers or goes in -- goes into the air. I'd also ask -- you're saying you believe that watering and perhaps fencing would be sufficient. Was there any thought given to perhaps testing those methods when you yanked the tank without any sort of -- of precautions being taken to control the dust? And would it make sense to do that kind of an experiment to see, you know, what will be a sufficient level of control. So, we know if you're only going to go in and do watering, I mean, clearly the public does not trust your characterization of what's there. Can you demonstrate to us that just watering will, indeed, control the dust sufficiently? MR. STIMPSON: That's actually a very good suggestion. And we'll look at that and see whether that can be fit into the program. MR. BRANDON: Thank you. I also had two other questions, based on a quick reading of your description of the plan. One is, as Amy described it, you talk about monitoring the air as you go along and if it appears that the more intense, aggressive controls are needed, those would be added. As I read this, it sounds like you also attend, based on that monitoring, if you're not showing escape into the atmosphere of asbestos, that you also intend to go from a -- the higher levels of precaution the other direction, to decrease the amount, regardless of what has been detected in the soil if it shows that, as you are excavating, asbestos is not showing up in the ongoing monitoring. MR. STIMPSON: The way the plan is put together, it gives us the option, in the event that we are being -- we believe we're being overly aggressive in the dust control to cut it back. MR. BRANDON: Again, my -- well, my response to that would be that is not an acceptable approach in my view, given that I, as most people here, I think, don't accept your characterization of the site. So, now, that first shovel full may not, you know, turn it up, but we have no idea that the next shovel full won't be that one where that heavier distribution is located. My last question, and I'll pass on, is the statement on Page 1 of Appendix D where you seem to indicate that regardless of what hits have been found -- the statement here is that [reading] "Excavations less than one hundred square feet in size will not require the use of the airborne asbestos management and monitoring -- monitoring plans." So, if I -- if I'm reading that right, you're saying that any area under a hundred square feet -- and I think elsewhere you also say landscaped areas -- that no dust mitigation methods will be used; is that correct? MR. STIMPSON: Correct, yeah. The -- MR. BRANDON: And why -- why is that? And how did you arrive at the figure of one hundred feet? MR. STIMPSON: We made a judgment that the amount of exposure and the potential for generating dust out of an excavation area that is ten feet by ten feet, which is a hundred square feet, is not sufficient to cause a risk. MR. BASS: Isn't that what you're going to be doing, is excavating ten by ten areas around pilings? MR. STIMPSON: David, the -- the deeper excavations will be in ten feet by ten feet, but those will be done in an area that has a much larger disturbance. So, in reality, we will not be able to come onto the site in a building area and not disturb anything except the pile cap area. And we're assuming that the dust control plans will be applied to the entire building area. So, the intent is not to try to get out of doing dust control during pile cap excavation. If that's the interpretation that's being made, that was not the intent. MS. WELLS: Lisa wants to get back in again. We're trying to do people who haven't had a chance yet. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was actually going to make the same point that Michael did about the hundred square feet, but since he made it already, I'll point out that that didn't come up when you were talking about the three levels of things you were going to do. You're going to wet it; you're going to wet it and use fencing; and you're going to wet it, use the fencing, and use the additive. And then he has to point out, well, you know, if it's a hundred square feet, ten by ten or whatever, you're not going to do this stuff. Last time, Joe had to point out that you really couldn't make the statement that you didn't know that the liner of the tank had asbestos in it. Michael had to point out that you didn't have all the asbestos showing on your maps. You do this for a living. We are here; it's late at night. I certainly have better things to do, as do all these other people. And you guys aren't giving us a square picture. And in many ways, you're wasting our time. So, when you come back, I ask that you be prepared and you give us an accurate description of what you're going to do and not wait for us to say what about this, what about that. It's not fair, and it's not right. [Applause] MR. VOLPE: I'm sorry, I didn't introduce myself last time. I'm kind of nervous. My name is Michael Volpe, and I live at 51 Montgomery Street. How come you haven't dug around that Building 28? That's the root of all -- all evil, that building. That's the first building that was here. MS. WELLS: Okay, thank you. MR. VOLPE: No, wait a minute. If you dig around that building, you're going to find two tank cars in there, railroad cars. I saw them put them in there. They're holding tanks to put chemical in them and they treat the chemical and shoot it into the ground. That is the worst spot, that Building 28. You're going to find a lot of contamination there, dear. I -- I came to this building when I was a little boy. My best friend's father was a watchman and a fireman. I spent my life in this building. You don't know what's in around that building. They made brake linings. I can give you the name of the manager of the brake lining department, Mr. Johnson. He came from Virginia. He lived across the street from me on Montgomery Street. That's filthy in there with stuff. And I know we're talking about what's acceptable and what isn't acceptable. Just -- I want -- another thing I want to say. We're talking about water level and height when you build and all that stuff and drainage. When you people build over here, is that going to elevate my daughter's cellar. It gets six and seven feet of water, 300 feet from here. Right over there; that's where my daughter lives [indicating]. They put the bus -- they put the bus station in; they put the garage in. She's under water every time it rains. She's been there 33 years. The last four or five years she gets water. She's crying. Her cellar is caved in. You people are going to build here and the water is going to go over there. I know. I've got so many things I could tell you. I'm 80 years old. I know all about this stuff. They built the -- they built a tunnel -- all the water. They built a turn-around in the -- in the field over there. You know the best -- the best farmland they had over there, it's all water. It's all going this way; it's all going this way [indicating]. [Applause] MS. WELLS: Thank you. Okay. I had a lineup which included you and then you [indicating]. And then we'll get to some additional people who haven't spoken. Then we'll come back around a second time, okay. MS. DEERY: Hi, my name is Peg Deery. I live at 69 Dudley Street. I'd like to know -- just have you clarify a little bit about the monitoring of the air. You mentioned something about you'll be monitoring the air quality, and it takes 24-hours to find the results. I wasn't sure about that. My concern is that whatever process you mentioned that you said that, that means that a lot of dust might be put into the air while you're waiting for the results to come back, and it will be too late by then. MR. STIMPSON: Sure. The monitoring program that we're proposing, we have made an assumption that the level of asbestos in the soil is uniformly distributed throughout the site. And then we have done calculations assuming that asbestos gets into the air with dust. And because we can do real-time monitoring of dust, we have then derived an acceptable level of dust. So, we will have real-time data on the dust levels, and the management program has criteria for which we take response actions. In addition to that, we will have monitors for asbestos fibers, both on the workers and at the work area and away from the work area. And we can't get data on that faster than 24 -- overnight, 24 hours. So, we're looking at dust as an indicator of a problem. And we're confirming it with asbestos- direct measurements that come in a day later. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think most people know what "real-time monitoring" is. MR. STIMPSON: Real-time monitoring means that the detector instantaneously gives you the level of dust. You don't have to send it off to a lab. The instrument itself reads it as a direct readout. MS. WELLS: Okay. We're going to you [indicating]. MS. MAGUIRE: My name is Susan Maguire. I'm at 125 Jackson Street -- Jackson and Harvey. And I have to say, first of all, this is, what, the third year that we've been meeting, some of us who have been in the neighborhood for that long? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fourth. MS. MAGUIRE: Fourth year, okay. There's a lot of anger in the community, and quite frankly, at the end of the last meeting, I said I'm not going to be the good cop, not that you probably think I ever am, but I'm going to let you have it tonight, because we don't trust you. You've been in cahoots with, from our perspective, W. R. Grace all these years. You do the sampling. At the meeting four years ago, you couldn't answer the questions. We had the answers. You didn't ever admit to having asbestos. Joe Joseph did the research, found out about multi-specimens. It just goes on and on and on. So, you have to understand that the neighborhood doesn't understand how you sleep at night. And we're not going to be guinea pigs. If you're on the cutting edge of something, not in our neighborhood. Thank you very much. [Applause] MS. MAGUIRE: Now, I have a couple of comments. You don't know the neighborhood that you're dealing with. And I'm not sure whether this was the remediation or if this is the controlling of the dust at the construction activity site, you talked about spraying the site, washing the wheels with water -- a wheel-wash station, paving, sand on the roads and tarps on the contaminated areas. Do you know the neighborhood that you're dealing with? Do you know what happened when they closed the headhouse at the T station and wouldn't let us enter that way? The -- I'll say the boys in the neighborhood -- who know if they were boys or girls -- broke every one of the windows in the T station until they put up grating. And then they finally opened up the T station. We've got a neighborhood that's not going to put up with this crap, all right. You can't be saying that you're going to be washing the wheels. My husband works in the trades. The tradespeople, they're not trained like you. And they're not trained like some of the people in the neighborhood. They -- you think you're going to train -- you're going to train all of these bulldozer operators to get in there and make sure the dust isn't flying in the air? How the heck are you going to do that? Washing the wheels on the cars -- on the trucks before they go? The -- what was something else I saw? The -- the ways that -- the haul routes. I want to know where those haul routes are going to be. Are they going to be in my neighborhood? The dust -- Amy, you didn't even want to go down this road at the last meeting. You started talking about the wind patterns in the neighborhood. You were there -- the woman over there in the blonde hair. We went, "Oh, yeah. Tell us about the wind patterns." The wind comes down Route 2 right into my -- my house. I can't keep my house clean. What's going to prevent that asbestos that you say isn't there, that Joe Joseph found, that you admitted to, how are we going to know that that asbestos isn't in our neighborhood? And the last question I have is: Who is monitoring you? When you're monitoring the site, who the hell is monitoring you? And I want to say that I want to see -- and I don't know if Catherine [inaudible] is still here - - I want to see somebody in the city government making sure that somebody is watching you, because you're supposed to be watching Grace. We don't trust any of it. [Applause] MS. WELLS: Do you want any further explanation of some of these techniques that you talked about or do you -- MS. MAGUIRE: Yes. I want to know are they going to be -- when is all this -- MS. WELLS: I understand. MS. MAGUIRE: -- covering and washing going to happen? Over what period of time? And how are we going to protect the kids in the neighborhood? MS. WELLS: Okay, okay. MR. STIMPSON: What we're proposing to do is when the development plan gets to a point where we can lay out a program that will have the description of where all of these activities will be, where the major haul roads will be, what areas will be disturbed, where the monitoring program is going to be, where the stockpile areas are going to be, we will be putting together a program -- a plan that will be part of the contract documents that the contractor will be required to follow. A lot of the techniques that we are talking about are being implemented on sites where there is concern about there being dust movement or soil movement off the properties. A wheel-washing station is nothing more than an area where a truck goes through before he has to come off the site. And there is a laborer that does the washing. So, it's an assigned person who is responsible for that, and that's part of the construction process. The haul roads that have asphalt on them, it's just a common sense thing that says if you have an asphalt haul road as opposed to a dirt haul road, you aren't going to generate the level of dust that you would normally generate on a construction site. The various activities of proactively wetting the soil and managing the soil, there will be people assigned to them to follow the plan that is being -- that will be developed and required by the construction contract. MS. MAGUIRE: But who is going to be monitoring all of that for the neighbors? If we don't trust any of this process -- nobody trusts W. R. Grace. I could go on. MS. WELLS: Okay. MS. MAGUIRE: -- stock and every mutual fund -- mutual funds, you can't get a mutual fund without W. R. Grace, because they're under evaluated. They think they're going to get better, but we know better. But what I want to know is who is going to monitor you? MS. WELLS: Okay, all right. MR. STIMPSON: The way the program is set up right now, there isn't a check and balance to Haley and Aldrich. MS. MAGUIRE: Well, I'd like to see it in the record that we demand a check and balance to make sure that if you're digging and there -- the asbestos is going to be monitored for, and if you find it, you're going to stop construction and you're going to institute some kind of a plan. You're going to go back to the neighborhood; you're going to go back to the City Council, and you're going to talk about it. And they're going to let the people know, again, in many, many, many languages, what's going on over there, because the kids in this neighborhood don't speak English -- the extended neighborhood. And they're going to be -- they hang out at Russell Field. And they're going to be all over the place. They're going to be disturbing the tarps, etcetera, etcetera. MR. STIMPSON: Thank you. That's a good observation. MS. MAGUIRE: Yeah, right. MS. WELLS: Okay. This gentleman here and two or three people that haven't -- you haven't spoken and you haven't spoken [indicting]. We'll do that, and then we'll see where we are. MR. WEITZMAN: Are we going back to Mike after the people who haven't spoken once? He didn't finish his speech. MS. WELLS: Yes. I understand. I understand. MR. HOROWITZ: Thank you, gentlemen. I'm from another part of the city. My name is Stash Horowitz. I live in Cambridgeport. I'm co-chair of the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Initiative and recently elected vice president of a newly formed Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods. I'd like to share with everybody here a little bit of our experience with a site in our neighborhood which is currently being under proposal by Spaulding and Slye in partnership with W. R. Grace. I don't know if Spaulding and Slye is -- has a role in this site. I profess ignorance. But the LSP currently is Maureen Hill- Collins from Haley and Aldrich. Previous environmental studies have been done by GZA Geoenvironmental of Newton Upper Falls. Paul Ryder was the LSP. And the site was -- is commonly known as the Polaroid site on Memorial Drive. Before that, it was B. B. Chemical, which made adhesives from 1935 to about 1965. And Dover Stamping and Manufacturing, which made sheet metal from the 1850s to the 1950s, where they used heavy metals to coat the -- and treat the sheet metal. The site was -- spill was found in the middle of the site in the early 1990s and was cleaned up under the direction of GZA with the DEP. And Mr. Miano was involved in that, I believe. I know Mr. Miano very well and admire him in many ways. However, the neighborhood felt that heavy metal should have been tested for. What was found was one two dichlorodifluoromethane and toluene. Buried tanks were removed, and soil was removed from the site. And the response was it was RAO'd, response action outcome. The site was checked off by the DEP and considered cleaned up. And then two or three years later, a number of development proposals came up for the site. And because the site had been checked off by the DEP, the developer at that time, primarily Spaulding and Slye in partnership with Polaroid, said that no further testing was necessary. No further soil testing was necessary. The City Council disagreed and asked the developer, at the time when geotechnical borings were being drilled for, you know, a possible construction, to test the soil since the holes were being drilled. And the developer refused. So, with the assistance of our own Department of Public Health, a young gentleman named Sam Lipson who is our new environmental health director, we went to Mr. Miano after we had done some studies on the site. And the DEP reopened the site. The first time, I'm told, in the state's history that a site that had been closed off was reopened. And, in fact, it was tested. The plan for heavy metals testing was drawn up with Mr. Miano and Haley and Aldrich. And, in fact, a zinc hot spot was found, ten times the -- above the level of zinc MCP, or whatever, I'm not a technical guy here. But ten times the amount of zinc was found in various spots and ten times the amount of lead. Sixty-eight tons of soil were removed from the site. While this process was going on, the developer decided to remove the asphalt from the entire garage plan, which was about an acre and a half. And dust was exposed. Dust started coming off the property, and there was no water sprayed on this site at all. Bulldozers came in -- this was only to remove sewer lines; so, the holes only had to go down about four to six feet. Three times the developer -- it's S and S Construction Company, that was Spaulding and Slye Construction Company, was called. And three times they said they would correct the problem. The hoses that they used were inadequate and not used. The bulldozers came in again. Neighbors complained that dust from this heavy metal contaminated area was getting into their homes and on their windows and in their lungs. Sam Lipson, of the Public Health Department, twice went to Spaulding and Slye. And the third time he told them that if they didn't do something, he would shut the site down. They promised to spray this additive on site. They had to bulldoze the soil back in because we put a court case in on the building permit for the garage. So, as part of the court case, they wanted their permit still active. So, the judge said they had to put the soil back in and stabilize it. So, we were told they did stabilize it. However, dust is still coming from this site. And I want to read you a paragraph from a letter from today's Cambridge Chronicle by Jim Guttenson [phonetic] and Joanne Kauffman [phonetic], who are direct abutters to this site. There is the -- the black tarp is up along the fence. The soil has been put back, and supposedly some additive has been put on top, I'm told by Sam Lipson, who called Spaulding and Slye who told him that they had already put the additive on. Maureen Hill-Collins of Haley and Aldrich agreed and said the site was stabilized and there should be no problem with dust. This letter was written a few days ago and published -- written June -- June 8th or 9th and published in today's Chronicle. I'll start in the middle just about the relevant part. [Reading] "Early action on our three simple suggestions would sweep away the debris and we and our neighbors could get on with our lives in a neighborhood that we and the city can be proud of. City Agencies -- relevant city agencies should enforce construction dust and litter laws. The grit and filth blowing from the site daily deposits a nasty film on every surface in our homes. "The black fabric intended to mitigate blowing grit and dust flaps irrelevantly in the breeze, and unsightly weeds and litter punctuate the edges of the property. "Fines should be levied against the developer and owner of this site, just as fines are levied against drunken drivers." Now, this is an amazing letter because I should tell you that Mr. Guttenson was in favor of the Polaroid project for about a year and a half and has since changed his mind. I advise you to find out more details from other -- your neighbors in other parts of Cambridge. And I just want to end by saying that we in Cambridgeport very much support what you and your neighborhood have done. We admire you; we've watched you from afar. Some of your members have recently joined our Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods. And while I agree with a lot of the things said that neighborhoods shouldn't have to do all of this, let's keep doing it in order to keep these people on their toes and protect our own public health and safety. Let's keep pressuring our public officials, and let's keep getting the assistance as much as we can of Mr. Miano, Mr. Bolduc, Mr. Lipson, and every possible aid we can get. Let's also unite across the city to make sure that it's a citywide concern of public health. Thanks for listening. I'm sorry to take so much time. [Applause] MS. WELLS: This person right here, and then one in -- MS. ARENA: Good evening. My name is Laura Arena. I'm a neighbor from 44 Magoun Street. I'm also a member of Harvard Environmental Network. You -- one of you, a little while ago, mentioned that you have made the assumption of even distribution of asbestos in the site. And when I heard that word, I was reminded of my high school geometry professor whenever we feebly tried to answer his questions by assuming. And there's a famous proverb about that, which I won't repeat. I'm sure you know. First of all, how did you make this assumption, and if this was the assumption, why didn't you also test evenly throughout the site? Why did you not test around Building 28 and the area in Zone 5 which is quite conspicuously left untested and is an area slated for development? That's my first question. MR. STIMPSON: It's my opinion that the asbestos is not uniformly distributed through the soil, as I've talked about tonight. And it is my opinion that assuming that it is uniformly distributed at the concentrations that are being detected is a conservative assumption as to the amount of asbestos that's present on the site. So, that's why I made the assumption that it was uniformly distributed, because it is a conservative one. It would indicate that there is a higher level of asbestos than I believe actually exists. We have tested the site sufficient enough for me to feel comfortable that the program that we're putting together is an appropriate program to control the dust. Your second question -- MS. ARENA: Well, it was part of the first question. Why wasn't that second half of Zone 5 tested, and why wasn't Building 28 tested? MR. STIMPSON: The reason that -- again, this sampling plan was presented to the public. The public, basically, asked for testing in the area that is proposed that was tested. There wasn't an indication that the type of construction activities that occurred on the site, and the other portion of the site was a hamburger stand, warranted the level of testing. And that's how we ended up with this level of testing that's on Zone 5. Again, you know, there will be more testing with intrusive activities, as part of the proposed plan that's being developed. MR. JOSEPH: That's why we want a public meeting on this because we present our concerns; you respond; that becomes what you do. We don't have a second chance to comment. MS. WELLS: Okay, let's see if there's -- there's some people who haven't yet spoken tonight. MS. ARENA: I have a second question. MS. WELLS: You have one more? MS. ARENA: Yes. MS. WELLS: Okay. MS. ARENA: Okay. The other question -- I still sort of feel like the first one was not fully answered, but anyway. The second question is regarding the fact that you consider this whole procedure to be cutting edge. And I certainly don't feel very happy about the fact that my lungs are going to be part of this cutting-edge experiment. And I wonder how others feel about that. Also, this cutting-edge experiment will be taking place around Russell Field, an area used predominately by children, and specifically by Cambridge Public Schools in their sports programs and health education programs, as well as community groups. And I wonder how well they will be notified about this happening. MR. STIMPSON: That's a concern that has been expressed at the prior meeting. And we'll try to figure out a program that will address that concern. MS. ARENA: Since last meeting it hasn't been at all considered? MR. STIMPSON: Well, again, it's going -- it's looking at what actually is going to happen on the site, which right now we don't really have a full idea as to what areas are going to have intrusive activities, whether they're going to be sufficiently close to the potential concern areas, what level of possible communications might be available to us. It's -- we -- we -- MS. ARENA: But you are aware of the fact that you will have children playing regularly there and taking part in sports activity adjacent to the areas that you are planning to develop? MR. STIMPSON: Correct. Yes. Yes, we're aware of that. Thanks. MS. WELLS: Okay. I'm going to -- there are two -- three people I'm going to call on, and then we've been requested -- you've been asking for Mike to have a chance to say more. And I don't want him to have an explosion here. I know he's got more to say. So, we'll go to this gentleman here, to this gentleman, to this gentleman [indicating], and then to Mike. MR. ZAMORE: Yeah, my name is Andrew Zamore. I'm from 19 Fairfield Street. And I just wanted to make the observation that this asbestos seems to be amazing stuff. The fibers can be both uniformly distributed when it seems to be convenient for you, and randomly distributed with no predictable pattern when also convenient for you. You talked about instituting the methodology for the wetting down, the agent that you would spray on the soil or the tarps. And that was - - I think when you said you believed that was -- you could predict where to do that because it was uniform. And yet when you're doing the borings, you said that it seems to be -- it's random. You attributed the difference in our samplings and your samplings to the randomness. So, I just wanted to find out a little bit more about asbestos fibers and how that can be. MR. STIMPSON: Hopefully, what you're hearing is when it is conservative to assume that the material is uniformly distributed throughout the soil at the concentrations we've detected, that's an assumption that we're making. When you ask my opinion as to how the -- why we have differences in test results and those sorts of things, the fact is that in my opinion is that it's not uniformly distributed. And it's my opinion that assuming it is uniformly distributed for the purposes of calculating the mass of asbestos that might be possible of getting into the air and determining response factors for dust monitoring, that is a conservative assumption, in my opinion. So, I have tried to be -- err on the side of conservatism when developing criteria for responses. And in response to what my opinion is as to what's out there, I've tried to be truthful. MS. WELLS: Okay. Camilo, if you could help, please. This gentleman in the back row, David Bass, and then this gentleman [indicating]. And then we'll go to Mike. This gentleman standing up, the one in -- MR. LEVITT: Hello. David Levitt from Notre Dame Avenue. My first quick question is: What other pollutants might be released by excavation; has that been covered at other meetings, or will it be covered -- either airborne or in groundwater, etcetera. MR. STIMPSON: Let's see, there are -- the management plans that will be put together for the construction activity will address the other contaminants that exist in the soil. The contaminants that are present on the site at levels that might be of concern to the neighborhood are petroleum products and naphthalene. That has been addressed at other meetings. MR. LEVITT: It has, okay. My second question is: What about the non-disturbed areas; is there a guarantee that they're going to remain non- disturbed or are light poles going to be installed, underground cables for watering, etcetera? Water control, grading? Or is it -- are these going to be paved over and remain permanently and forever undisturbed? MR. STIMPSON: The development plan will address in those areas the management program that's necessary. In other words, we will look at all the areas that will have intrusive activities and manage it during the construction process. Once the -- the project is constructed, there will be deed restrictions placed on the property that will require similar levels of management for intrusive activities. Again, as the plans laid out, greater than ten by ten or a hundred square feet, will have to follow the same plan. So, in the event that there was a need to repave and you had to dig up the pavement, in the event there was a need to recreate an area, a large area, they would follow the same management plan. MR. LEVITT: I'm just pushing on that -- MR. WEITZMAN: Process question. Purely process. I'm very concerned that we're getting to the time of the evening when us who have other jobs - - this is not our work -- are very tired. People can't concentrate. Some people on the panel have gotten up. Other people have left. I'm concerned that at this point, before people leave, we ought to come to a process or resolution about do we feel this meeting can answer all the questions that people have. I think it's obvious what my answer is, but I'm suggesting that you engage in that process. MS. WELLS: Thank you. We'll find a moment in a -- I'll find a moment to do that. David? MR. BASS: I'm David Bass, Norris Street. I have a couple of quick questions and then an extended comment, which I hope won't be too extended. First, Wes, can you tell me at what level of asbestos in soil would the soil be considered a hazardous waste? MR. STIMPSON: I don't believe that for this site there is a level that be -- would have it be considered to be a hazardous waste. MR. BASS: So, if it were 99 percent asbestos, it still wouldn't be a hazardous waste? MR. STIMPSON: I believe that which is an appropriate interpretation -- there is a -- if, in fact, this was an asbestos disposal site, then there is a set of criteria that kick in. But I don't think this meets the criteria for that. I yield to Jack for a moment. MR. MIANO: I think I might be able to add something to that. MS. WELLS: Jack, wait a minute for the mike, please. MR. MIANO: Jack Miano. I'm with DEP. I believe that the way asbestos is looked at is that it's characterized as a "special waste," and if you want to transport it to another location, you have to take it to a facility that is permitted to accept special waste. At least in Massachusetts I believe that's the case. And I think there is maybe one landfill in Massachusetts that can take it. And they do have that special waste permit. If you want to take it elsewhere, you have to make sure that it complies with all Department of Transportation regulations and that the receiving facility can accept asbestos waste. And I guess that probably would also go for any material that had asbestos and other contaminants in it also. If you want additional clarification on that, give me a call and we can discuss particulars with the asbestos group at DEP. MS. WELLS: Okay. Is that clear, David, and do you have... MR. BASS: Well, to follow up, is there a level at which it is considered a special waste? MR. MIANO: There may not be. MR. BASS: Can I ask that we look into -- MS. WELLS: Hang on a second, David. Let's be sure people can hear. MR. BASS: Okay. I'd like to ask that we look into how soil -- if we're going to be handling soil with different levels of asbestos, above one percent, above three percent, whatever level it is, that we be aware ahead of time what the regulatory requirements are for handling the soil. If it's to be treated as a hazardous waste or a special waste, how it's handled differently in different situations. The other -- MS. WELLS: David, can you wait just a second. I'd see if he has any response to the issue whether there is a regulation that speaks to the levels that would be considered. MR. MIANO: I can just add one more thing, maybe, to shed a little bit of light on that. The regulations, whether they're federal or state, that determine whether or not something is a hazardous waste or a special waste only apply to material that you are transporting to another location pretty much. So, if you were to work with some soil that had some level of asbestos in it on the site, but your intention was to replace it to the excavation and cover it and apply management practices while you were doing that to prevent exposures and dust conditions, then whether or not it was -- that material was a special waste or a hazardous waste might not matter to your handling of that material. It's only when you pretty much go to take it off site and transport it to another facility that you have to comply with all the regulations that deal with special waste and hazardous waste. MR. BASS: Is there a chance that some of this material will be taken off site, Wes? MR. STIMPSON: At this present time, I would assume that there will be some material that will leave the site, yes. MR. BASS: I -- I'd recommend that if this material were to be taken off site that you find a way to get it off site without going past any of the local residences. [Laughter from the audience] MR. STIMPSON: We can make a point of that. MR. BASS: Just friendly advice. I wanted also to reinforce what Wes was saying about the nature of the contamination, the asbestos contamination. We have a number of samples where we have asbestos in one part of a split at substantial levels, but not detectible in another part of the same split. It is very likely that the asbestos is - - is in pockets, as Wes indicates. So that when you find -- if you do have an area which has a high level of asbestos in one part of the sample, it might be clean in another part, and vice versa. But because the samples were taken here in a totally unbiased manner and within each zone, totally systematically, if I interpret that correctly, you were not trying to find asbestos. You were just taking spot samples and -- and mixing them together in the bowl from each sample core. And you were sampling on a regular grid. So, there was no effort to find asbestos. And there are so many samples taken -- all told over 600 at this point. It is possible to do a mass calculation here in ways with greater certainty than we usually can do. We always try to do mass calculations with much worse data than this, where the data is biased or the data is some way incomplete. This is -- this is complete data. This is unbiased data. It appears that in the -- there is about a five percent hit rate in the data that Haley and Aldrich took. It was a little higher in the data that the neighbors took. But the bottom line is that if you take all of the -- if you take all of the samples and you average everything together, assuming that when it's non-detect there's no asbestos present, and multiply that by the mass of the soil at the site, you should get a pretty good estimate of the mass of the asbestos at the site. I have availed myself of this opportunity, and I'd like to report that of the 252 million pounds of soil over the roughly 14 or 15 acres that were tested to a depth of four feet, we were getting an average hit over the site of about a quarter of a percent when you add in all the hits and average those to the non-detects. And what this means in terms of mass of asbestos is Zone 3 and Zone 5, excluding the -- just looking at the Haley and Aldrich data, had not hits of asbestos. So, you would calculate no mass there. Zone 2 had a smattering of hits at one to four percent. And you would estimate that mass to be about 35,000 pounds. Zone 4 had about 210,000 pounds. And Zone 1, which had the highest concentrations, would have about 390,000 pounds. All totalling about 630,000 of asbestos, which, if you put the neighbors' splits in with this data, since they tended to be a little higher, that number would go up higher, approaching or perhaps exceeding a million pounds. Now, there is uncertainty in -- in these types of analyses. So, you've got to take this with a grain of salt. We're looking at an order of magnitude here, but even if -- if you're saying it's an order of magnitude high, you're still looking in the range of perhaps a hundred thousand to a million pounds of asbestos throughout the entire site. The reason I bring this up is to point out that there is a lot of material here. This is serious. And I would urge you, in doing your designs for the site, to do everything possible to avoid disturbing the soil because there is so much here and because it is so -- it is so widely scattered that it is not always possible to know where it is. So, I urge you to -- to bring that dirt in, build up, cover with clean fill, and use construction techniques that avoid disturbing the soil at all cost. Thank you. [Applause] MS. WELLS: Okay. This gentleman and then Mike. And then we -- I know everybody is getting tired. So, there does have to be some agreement about how to proceed. And so, I'd like to entertain that. And I'd like to ask the people at the table here to be thinking about what the options are so that when we get to that point, we'll either pause a moment and let you caucus or we will -- whatever seems appropriate, but we'll try to do it in an orderly way. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does that mean that the people who haven't spoken yet won't get to speak? MS. WELLS: No, it does not. It just means that we're trying to take everybody into account. Some people may decide to go away. I don't know. MR. KELLEY: Name is Sean Kelley. Lived here all my life, 30 Columbus Ave. Been a construction worker, heavy equipment all my life, and so I know what the practice you guys are going through and all that sort of stuff. So, I can't really put it into words, but this gentleman here [indicating], we've talked a lot. He's going to share my questions. [Laughter from the audience] MR. HOLLMAN: My name is Aram Hollman, 12 Whittemore Street, Arlington. I think this evening people have asked you a number of very detailed technical questions. I have a lot of those, too. I will stay away from them because they rely on some assumptions that a whole lot of other people have also found -- have found very questionable. The distribution of asbestos, people have called you and said reality check. Construction is a very, very messy business. People have pointed out the testing is a crap shoot. You've made some assumptions about airborne asbestos. Somebody else asked one real interesting question which is who is watching you folks. And I guess I'd like to ask one or two questions of you, but mostly a couple of questions of Jack Miano. I'm just wondering, maybe from Mr. Stimpson, how long has -- for how many years has Haley and Aldrich had a relationship with W. R. Grace regarding this particular site, just how many years, roughly? MR. STIMPSON: Let's see. I have been associated with this site since the early eighties; so, 15 years or so. MR. HOLLMAN: So, we're talking around like the 15 or 20 year range and this is still not cleaned up; is that a fair statement, accurate statement? MR. STIMPSON: We have not completed the regulatory process. MR. HOLLMAN: And it's not cleaned up; that's also a fair statement, isn't it? MR. STIMPSON: When you say "cleaned up," the regulations basically require currently that one area be cleaned up. And we've talked about that in other meetings. MR. HOLLMAN: Uh-huh. Maybe if I could ask Jack a couple of questions. Shall we share this mike, or do you have something or? MS. WELLS: I'll arrange for him to be heard. MR. HOLLMAN: Okay. I guess, Jack, you're at DEP. I guess we're somewhat looking to you here for a little bit of reassurance or oversight of what's going on here. Is that a reasonable thing to expect of DEP? MR. MIANO: Certainly. MR. HOLLMAN: Do you think that we as neighbors are justified in our concerns here, or are we somehow hysterical, paranoid, and overreacting here? MS. WELLS: I think I'm going to suggest that Jack not answer that question. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh why -- he's going to answer it. MS. WELLS: I'll leave it to Jack. MR. MIANO: Justified. MR. HOLLMAN: We are justified, okay. I'll -- I'll -- what are you going to do if this doesn't - - what are you folks at DEP going to do if this doesn't work, just to take one -- MS. WELLS: "This" being what? MR. HOLLMAN: What action will -- what action is DEP willing to take to step in and have a little bit greater oversight over this process than has currently been the case? MR. MIANO: That's a tough question. MR. HOLLMAN: I don't ask easy ones. MR. MIANO: I guess -- the way -- the way things are right now, this site is -- I'm working on this site, and I'm not actually officially assigned to it. So, still overall, Haley and Aldrich is more or less the watchdog. And as -- as Stash Horowitz points out, the folks in the neighborhood, you need to be your own watchdog, too. You need to continue to do that. If it was up to me, and if I had the authority, I would -- I would be there on site to watch every scoopful of dirt. But that's not going to happen because I have bunches of other sites to work on at the same time, and very rarely, if ever, do I get out to the field because we just don't have the resources. So, sad to say, while these activities are going on, probably you aren't going to have anyone from DEP out there watching those earth-moving pieces of equipment. Somebody should be doing that, and if it could be me, I guess that kind of direction is going to have to come from high up in the agency. I certainly don't have the authority to assign myself to do it. So, maybe you need to -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ...go back to them to request that or present that? MR. MIANO: I can -- I can go back, and I can pose that question that you asked. But I believe folks in the agency have heard your request many a time. And the consideration has been that we have all these other things to work on, and can we expend one or two individuals to look at this at the expense of other things. And I don't think that it's been a clear answer yes yet. And I -- I guess, knowing how strongly everybody feels about this site, I guess you should continue to lobby for that. And I don't -- I'm just not sure where it will get you. MR. HOLLMAN: How about who is your counterpart in the City of Cambridge with whom you're working? Is there somebody with whom you coordinate at the City of Cambridge level? MR. MIANO: I wouldn't exactly call it coordination, because we don't really work together. I enforce the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. And the City of Cambridge folks are enforcing the city bylaws, I guess. I've communicated with John and Sam on these issues many times. But coordination is probably too strong a term. MR. HOLLMAN: Uh-huh, okay. You turned this over to me. Do you want to say anything? MS. WELLS: Okay, I think we're going to move, if we can. I understand you're trying to get - - create some accountability. This gentleman handed it off [indicating]. Do you have a question of your very own? MR. KELLEY: Well, it was a simple thing. You keep talking about the spray and the chemicals. It's like anything else, something is dry, you put this spray chemical on there, which I would imagine it hardens, right, in a sense. That's fine. That's the surface. But now what happens when the bucket breaks the surface? You're back to the same problem. MR. STIMPSON: Correct. It's going to be a proactive management of the materials. It won't be every bucket that comes up, but it will be the exposed area. MR. KELLEY: You're digging a hole, ten by ten. You spray the surface, ten by ten. The bucket goes in. It's all open. You're back to the same problem. MR. STIMPSON: Yeah. There -- there is -- MR. KELLEY: So, that spray technique, it only works for after it's all dug -- I mean, before the guys go home for the night, you spray it down. MR. STIMPSON: Even during the construction process we can -- we can spray the areas that aren't actively being excavated. MR. KELLEY: Right. But once -- what I'm getting at is once you start excavating, that's what happens. And you're saying Phase III, you put this chemical down there, but when you're digging, it doesn't do any good because all the -- you're constantly breaking it up. MR. STIMPSON: Correct. And the purpose of the program is to control the large untreated areas of soil that can get wind-borne. We certainly aren't proposing that there is a program that says you can totally cover all the soil as the construction activity is going on. MR. KELLEY: In the process of washing tires, you wash them off with high-pressure hoses, I'm sure. And you have metal plates and the -- all the waste falls down below. Is that waste getting treated or is -- MR. STIMPSON: Yeah. That will all be -- MR. KELLEY: -- that all filtered through? MR. STIMPSON: -- managed in accordance with the regs, yes. MS. WELLS: Okay. Thank you. MR. BOLDUC: Hi. I'm John Bolduc from the Community Development Department. Going back to the earlier question about accountability, Sam Lipson, from the Public Health Department, would have been here tonight, but he was at the previous meeting, but he had a scheduled vacation. But I'm sure he would encourage you to call him at -- he has a new number: 665-3838. And talk to him, as well, about these monitoring issues. Obviously, these are difficult sites to deal with, but these are the kinds of things that he does want to deal with. So, I encourage you to communicate with him. MS. WELLS: Okay. Thank you. Now, we have an issue of how we continue here or finish this up or do it again or whatever it is that is going to work. Lisa, you were on briefly, sort of serendipitously earlier. And people have been asking for Mike to have a chance to raise some additional questions. I want to ask you, are you willing -- are you willing to stand by briefly, have Mike do a bit, and then figure out where we go from here? Okay, Mike. You're on. MR. NAKAGAWA: Well, I'm glad other people have been looking into this, too. Some of my irritation has been that I've spent dozens, if not hundreds of hours pouring through these documents as a biomedical researcher, as someone who has some experience in statistics. I've asked experts' opinions on these things, and I'm just really disappointed with the way things have been going. Before I start off specifically asking some questions about this, I wanted to follow up on the DEP. You said that you're not the person who is assigned. Where is the person who is assigned to this site? MR. MIANO: The point was that there actually is no person assigned specifically to deal just with this site. MR. NAKAGAWA: Okay. So, there's no DEP accountability specifically for this site. The other question I had was clarification on -- we're trying to exit -- or they're trying to exit Phase II, Comprehensive Site Assessment. And I was just wondering what your feelings were as part of the DEP on what constitutes Comprehensive Site Assessment and do building plans really -- is that tied to the Comprehensive Site Assessment, or is that an independent -- is the Comprehensive Site Assessment independent of what else is going on? MR. MIANO: Unfortunately, the DEP plays no part in the regulation of development except where it interfaces with exposures that can cause a significant risk. There's a problem in that, although you may have a level of -- a level of contaminant that, at that level, can cause a risk if somebody is exposed for a very long period of time, over their lifetime, say. You can also have a situation where that same level of contaminant over the exposure period of a short-term situation like a development project does not cause a significant risk. So, the department regulations don't really speak to that except to say that we recommend that there be no exposure. So, back to point one. We don't regulate development. Anybody can develop any property. And we only look to the contaminants and the exposure and whether or not there is a significant risk. And in this case, that situation comes down to dust control. And I think as much as possible, this site should be worked in the wet, as when an asbestos abatement is done at any of your houses, or anybody's house, the answer there is to work in the wet. And the best thing that you can do is keep an eye on this site and see that that is occurring. And if a dust condition occurs, then ring the bells and whistles. Make telephone calls, and talk to anybody that you can. And as Stash indicated, that's what was done at the site that he discussed. And that's what should be done here. MR. NAKAGAWA: But finding out the level of contamination on the site and fully understanding that is not a requirement for exiting Phase II, the Comprehensive Site Assessment? MR. MIANO: That -- the MCP says that you have to define the type and extent of contamination at any site. Your question was how does that interface with development. I think I answered that question. MR. NAKAGAWA: I was just wondering does development interface with it or is this -- [Turning tape] MS. WELLS: Do you have any further question for DEP? MR. MIANO: I'm not finished answering this question. MS. WELLS: Oh, excuse me. MR. MIANO: In -- this last question is what is required, more or less, of Phase II investigation. Yes, you need to define the type and extent of contamination. In this case, there's -- there's a slight difference. And that is that what needs to be done here is to define the extent of contamination. And a compromise has been made in that in realizing that it's very difficult to do an adequate characterization for asbestos, because of the limitations in sampling soil for asbestos, the compromise has been that an assumption will be made that there is a significant amount of asbestos over pretty much all of the site. Everyplace that any asbestos has been found. So, it doesn't really mater what -- what level has been found anyplace. We're going to assume that it's a high level and that any exposure to that soil, whether it has asbestos or not, would be a problem. And so the compromise is this activity and use limitation which hopes to eliminate any exposure to any areas that might have asbestos, whether they do or not. So, that's why it's not -- that's why the department is not really jumping up and down and saying we need a whole lot more analysis in that location there, because we understand that the activity and use limitation will assume that it's there and prevent any exposures at those places. MR. NAKAGAWA: But their plan says that they're only going to assume that there's significant quantities in places where they found it. MR. MIANO: That's only for the -- as I understand it, that's only during the development construction activities while they're excavating soil for the purpose of doing dust control at that location. When all is said and done, the activity and use limitation will prevent exposure to soils in pretty much any area where asbestos has been found. And you'll have either/or a fabric that prevents contact and dust or some thickness of soil, some landscaping or some pavement. Correct me if I'm wrong, Wes. That's pretty much the way it is. And, again -- MR. NAKAGAWA: That's afterward, but I'm talking about during. MR. MIANO: That's afterward. During is only for the purpose of preventing a dust condition. And that's -- that's the way the department would approach it also. MR. NAKAGAWA: But they have three levels of containment. And they're only applying -- you said that they're going to assume the worst case across the site. But they're saying they're going to -- for most of the site, it will have the lowest case. MR. MIANO: Right. As -- as this gentleman who is in the construction field pointed out, the additive, if it's an additive that forms a crust, would primarily be effective in situations where you're not doing excavation. So, probably the most effective thing would be to be spraying the activity while it's occurring. And I wanted to ask this question of you, Wes. Is it possible to spray the bucket while the bucket is working? MR. STIMPSON: It's possible, but it's really not practical. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Practical, my son's going to be playing baseball there. Practical, what do you mean practical? You think it's only -- you feel comfortable with this crust, right? But when the thing goes down and, you know, this stuff comes up and my son's playing in the next field, baseball, you think that's okay? MR. STIMPSON: The goal is to not generate -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't care about your goal. I'm asking you a question. Do you think that's okay? Do you feel comfortable with my son playing in that field while that bucket is hitting that dirt? MR. STIMPSON: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, you're sick. You're sick. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not with your son. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're sick. It's not your son. How can you sleep? You are sick. MS. WELLS: Okay, okay. MR. NAKAGAWA: The problem with asbestos that I don't know if people know, it's not like a volatile where after they're done, it's gone. If they knock it into the air, it's going to go travel probably to the nearest area and fall down, which is Russell Field. And it's going to stay there until it gets kicked up and breathed by the kids. They have a higher metabolic rate. They're going to breathe more. It's going to probably get into their lungs. They're kicking it around. This is a much more dangerous situation that something of a release of some chemical into the air that disappears after a short period of time. Once asbestos gets into the lungs, if it's a certain size, it'll stay there and act as an irritant for the rest of the child's life. And that's why I'm really concerned about the children. MS. WELLS: I think Ed would like to make a response. DR. CROUCH: I think that's a mischaracterization. MR. NAKAGAWA: Why? Look at the results. Look at what everyone's saying. DR. CROUCH: Yes. There's asbestos in all air at lower amounts. MR. NAKAGAWA: And I don't want any more because there's already enough. DR. CROUCH: I realize -- I realize that. Yes, it gets kicked up and it lands on the soil. It does not necessarily subsequently get kicked up. Soil gets turned over. It will get buried. MR. NAKAGAWA: There's grass over the soil. DR. CROUCH: It will get buried. [Inaudible discussion among audience members] MS. WELLS: Okay, okay. One -- one -- DR. CROUCH: We're talking about what is the ultimate -- MR. JOSEPH: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I don't mind you talking about science, all right, but don't get into this stuff. We're not that stupid. So, don't start talking about what you know a fiber of asbestos is going to do and what it isn't going to do. That's purely hypothetical. It's your opinion. In fact, it's your imagination. We don't want to hear any more of that. Stick to the data and the science. DR. CROUCH: This is the data. MR. JOSEPH: It's not. DR. CROUCH: It is. It is known what happens to particles that get in the air and subsequently land on soil. We know this from radioactive tracer studies where you can follow what happens to the tracer after it lands on the soil and what subsequently happens in the soil horizon. And you can follow it as it gets mixed down into the depths of the soil. MR. JOSEPH: That's simply not absolutely true, and you know that. DR. CROUCH: Absolutely true and I know that? MR. JOSPEH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And do they do those surveys on playing fields? DR. CROUCH: I don't believe that they -- I'm not certain whether a playing field has been included in any such study. MR. NAKAGAWA: These are soccer fields with kids with cleats. DR. CROUCH: Yes. That will help mix the surface layers of soil, if you think about it. MS. WELLS: Okay. Mike, are there more questions that you want to pursue? And let's think about -- how many? I'm sorry. MR. NAKAGAWA: Well, I guess, has there been a risk assessment on this site? DR. CROUCH: There has been -- there has been a risk assessment but not for the asbestos as yet. We've done some preliminary estimates based on the assumptions of asbestos over the whole site and the amounts of dust that might be kicked up by very large-scale construction. There was a construction previously proposed about ten years ago, which involved four large office blocks. Making that assumption and the assumption of large quantities of asbestos and the same amount of asbestos in the dust kicked up, one reaches the conclusion that, for the levels seen so far, it would not have triggered a significant risk under the MCP. Now, we don't trust those calculations because we're not certain what will happen. That is why there is a lot of dust management. That is why there's feedback build into the management system whereby first, control the dust; second, measure the dust; third measure the asbestos, if we can. And then, if necessary, do a feedback and get -- and make sure that whatever happens, the asbestos level stays low. MR. NAKAGAWA: Is this assessment that you've done a report somewhere that people could see? DR. CROUCH: No, we haven't gotten to that stage. This is our -- for our own internal can we justify going ahead. This is why we think we can sleep at night. This is why we can sleep at night, because we have done these calculations. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He just said that there would be dust. During the day when that thing gets -- he admitted that there would be dust, and would be practical to spray. DR. CROUCH: There will be some dust, yes. We're going to measure it -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, how can you accept that if your child is playing right next to that? How can you say that's acceptable? DR. CROUCH: Because the amounts are low enough. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bullshit. Low enough is not good for my son. I have a nine-year-old son. You expect me to accept that as well, it's low enough? DR. CROUCH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, bullshit. MR. NAKAGAWA: What is low enough? [Inaudible discussion among audience members] MS. WELLS: Okay, okay. One at a time. DR. CROUCH: What is low enough is -- what is low enough is an MCP requirement, Massachusetts Contingency. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's the number? DR. CROUCH: The number is ten to the minus-five lifetime risk. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I've talked to the ATSDR. Recently, I've been talking to them. They have no minimum risk levels simply because they cannot give any significant value. They said -- they said that it is a fairly high risk. And so they will not even publish a minimum significant level. In my hand is a whole amount of research related to kids. And there's a whole lot of research that is saying you need different standards for children. You have been talking about levels, and I don't know where your data is from. But this [indicating] is in the last ten years. And there is so much more that says that children should be treated in a separate category as should be pregnant women, elderly, and exercising people. And I want to see some kind of documents which show that, in your assessment, this has been done. Thank you. DR. CROUCH: As I said, we haven't -- [Applause] DR. CROUCH: We haven't yet done a formal assessment. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, how can you keep saying it's safe? How can you keep saying that? DR. CROUCH: We've done -- we've done these rough estimates to show that the risk level is very low. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not good enough. DR. CROUCH: And these risks -- acceptable under the MCP, according to regulatory definitions. MR. NAKAGAWA: See, my -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If the ATSDR says it's not, how can you -- DR. CROUCH: The ATSDR may not have a minimum risk level number for asbestos in air. I'm not certain; I haven't checked. However, they generate those numbers in exactly the same way that we analyze the risks for this sort of site. MR. NAKAGAWA: So, how did you generate your numbers if they say that there is no. DR. CROUCH: I don't believe that they do say that. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, I'll give you enough proof of that. MS. WELLS: Okay, good. Mike, are you going to -- do you have more, or -- MR. NAKAGAWA: I could go on, but the -- I guess, my concern is does the public know that what they're trying to do is exit Phase II of the MCP. And the next step is Phase III, Choosing a Remedial Action Plan. And you've seen how much more they're going to do and that's it, groundwater testing and -- let's see. These are additional tests and then they're going to decide what they're going to do: ten samples of the air, three samples of the ground, four samples of surface water, and ten sediment samples. And then they're going to decide how they're going to clean up this site and what they're going to do about it. And that's my concern. They haven't done a risk assessment. I don't know when they're going to. They're going to consider their building plans sometime in the future. They have sites that are out there that have not been characterized. So, they don't know the extent of samples. I've spoken with a professor of statistics at Boston University and UMass Dartmouth. And he was really concerned about the distribution of how the asbestos is on the site and recommended that there should be additional randomized sampling to figure out what's going on before anything occurs on this. And all of this is not going to be done. And they're going to decide what they're going to do without these considerations, according to the plans. And I don't hear anything different from what they're saying today. And I've just been talking and talking -- MS. WELLS: Let's see if there's a response to you, Mike. MR. STIMPSON: That is accurate. The level of soil characterization that has been done to date, in my opinion as a licensed site professional, is adequate for me to evaluate current risk and future risk, as required by the MCP. I don't think there is a person in this room that has indicated that they're concerned about the current risks associated with this site. Going forward -- MR. WEITZMAN: I have a concern, Wes, about the underground tank storage removal and how that occurred and whether people were exposed to asbestos. MR. STIMPSON: That's -- that's not what my statement meant -- was about. The presence of asbestos in this site at the current time, I have not heard anyone say that they're concerned that there's a risk. MR. NAKAGAWA: There was asbestos at the site. You were supposed to be watching over it, and you didn't do anything. MR. STIMPSON: You're getting sidetracked from my comment. MR. NAKAGAWA: There was asbestos on the -- that was our concern about the tank. It's not contamination in the tank, it's the contamination around the tank. MR. STIMPSON: Thank you. MR. WEITZMAN: I want it on the record I am concerned about current risk. You said everyone -- MS. WELLS: Okay, okay. Let's -- MR. STIMPSON: So, what is your concern about the current risk? MR. WEITZMAN: My concern is that -- MS. WELLS: Wait, wait for the microphone, please. MR. WEITZMAN: The way we were informed about the process that occurred on the underground tank storage removal makes me concerned that there might be many other actions going on at the present time, involving digging, shoveling, digging posts and all kinds of normal behaviors. Even a dog can go onto that site and dig a hole and possibly expose asbestos. A silly example, but there's all kinds of work that goes on out at that site. And given that you removed a -- a large storage tank and there were no standard monitoring procedures taken at that point, I'm very concerned about all the normal activities that are occurring on that site possibly exposing the neighbors to asbestos. MR. STIMPSON: So, in response to that, we've heard that concern, and we recognize that we probably weren't as sensitive as we should have been with that activity. And I can commit to you that future activities of that nature will certainly not occur without communication. But assuming that that is done, that there will not be any large intrusive activities on this property and the property remains the way it is, is there a concern about the risks of asbestos on this site? MS. WELLS: Lisa, and we have a gentleman who is speaking to other people back there and has been waiting a long time. So, you and then we're going to go to you. MS. BURKE: I have three questions. My name is Lisa Burke. I live on Kassul Park. One is from a neighbor who had to leave. I would like Mr. Miano, if you could assure us that W. R. Grace and Haley and Aldrich cannot move the site -- I'm getting my phases mixed up, but out of site classification -- characterization until they have tested Building 28 and further testing of Zone 5. Can you assure us of that tonight? MR. MIANO: I believe that -- that we've had some discussion with Haley and Aldrich about Building 28. And the department recommends that Building 28 be looked at also. Whether or not Zone 5 needs additional sampling, if the assumption is that we handle it as if it does contain a significant amount of asbestos, then it's questionable whether or not you need to do any additional testing because you will take protective measures. If the assumption is that because of that single hit that there is no asbestos there and that notice of activity and use limitation would not be placed on that, then the question as to whether additional testing should be done there bears additional scrutiny. MS. BURKE: So, I'm assuming that the answer is that DEP and you, personally, will not allow Grace and Haley and Aldrich to move out of the site characterization phase until Building 28 is tested, the results are reported, and Zone 5 is treated as if it is contaminated with asbestos; is that accurate? MR. STIMPSON: Just for clarification, the testing in Building 28, are you -- you're concerned about the possible presence of asbestos under the asphalt pavement, is that -- MS. BURKE: That's right. MR. STIMPSON: Okay. Just for clarification. MS. BURKE: And tanks that Mr. Volpe mentioned chemicals going into. MR. STIMPSON: Is there more information that could be provided on that, like a sketch plan or something? We have absolutely no record in the Building 28, and maybe he's confused as to the building numbers. There's no indication that there's tanks over there. MR. VOLPE: It's near the machine shop. You know the machine shop? MR. STIMPSON: No. Building 28 is the building that's in the parking lot across the street from Whittemore. It used to be an ice cream factory before Grace took it on. [Inaudible discussion among audience members] MS. CHURCH: Different building. MR. STIMPSON: Are you concerned that there were tanks around that building? MS. BURKE: I heard that concern. Apparently that was a different building. So, what I am -- MR. STIMPSON: Yeah. I think he's got the buildings wrong. MR. VOLPE: It's an asbestos building. You don't have to dig. There's brownish reddish brick there, right. I found it. I couldn't find it when I was here. I went across the river and I looked over and I saw the building. There's some tanks underground. I saw them put them in there. They used them for holding tanks, and they take 3,000 gallons of that chemical, you know, they thought they neutralized it -- right into the ground. MR. STIMPSON: They're internal to the facility itself. MR. VOLPE: I was always in here. I know all the stuff. MR. STIMPSON: Okay. MR. VOLPE: I saw the boiler room. I saw that thing going up and down. I was eight or ten- years-old and I spent 40 years in and around it. MR. STIMPSON: Yeah. I just wanted to clarify that the tanks that you're talking about are not necessarily next to Building 28, as we know Building 28. MR. VOLPE: They're in around there somewhere. You know the new -- the oldest building. That's the oldest building, across the tracks. Right up over there. MR. STIMPSON: That's Building 1 and 2 and 3, yeah. Okay. MS. BURKE: So, it sounds like the tanks are not near Building 28 as you are calling Building 28. And what I am asking for is that that -- the area around that building, and perhaps inside, I don't know, be tested for asbestos. It is part of the site, and it is very close -- it's like next door to neighbors who are here tonight. MR. STIMPSON: But again, just emphasize that that area is paved, and there will be restrictions on any intrusive activities in that area that put in place the same level of controls that the internal part of the site requires. MS. BURKE: It's been such a fight to get Grace and Haley and Aldrich to believe that there was asbestos on site, and, in fact, it was denied publicly twice that there was asbestos on site -- yes, it was. I was at that meeting. It was. MR. STIMPSON: I didn't say anything. MS. BURKE: Okay. I'm getting a shake -- a nod -- a shaking of the head, and I really don't appreciate it. In any case, it took two -- it took six months of one person's and then later a couple of more people's research in order to prove that -- get enough data together to convince Grace to do testing. And then, in fact, there was asbestos after we proved it -- after we proved it was very likely. I would like the assure -- I don't want to have to go through this again for one little piece of Grace property. It's taken four years to get to this point. All I am asking for is very simple. It cost $25 a test. You've already got the machinery out there. It's not big bucks. MR. STIMPSON: Okay. We hear you. MS. BURKE: Thank you. So, can you assure us that DEP will not allow Grace and Haley and Aldrich to move out of site classification -- characterization until Building 28 is tested and Zone 5 is treated as a contaminated site with hazardous -- with asbestos? MR. MIANO: I wish I had the authority to speak for all of DEP. But I would say that the department does have the option not to accept a Phase II report if it feels the extent of contamination has not been defined. And, to date, like you say, we would recommend that Building 28 be looked at. And it hasn't been done yet. So, that's definitely an option. And we -- I can initiate additional discussion with the section chief and higher -- MS. BURKE: That would be great. MR. MIANO: -- to discuss that issue, if need be. And we can discuss it more if you want to. And Wes and I will discuss it again, also. MR. VOLPE: [Inaudible] railroad tracks here on Harvey Street. I have a house here. That corrugated stuff, you know, the red stuff, it's all asbestos [inaudible]. It's all asbestos, that whole side of that building. I was over there. [Inaudible]. MS. WELLS: Okay -- MS. BURKE: I have two more questions. Am I going to get a chance -- my questions are not long. The answers are long. MS. WELLS: I understand. Okay, we'll do it. Then we'll go to you, then this gentleman in the back, and then we've got to talk about where we go from here. Joe -- Joe's been waiting since he -- for a second and third chance. Okay. MS. BURKE: The second question is from a neighbor, Hannah Goodwin of Clifton Street, who had to leave. She wanted to know if it is deemed necessary to put clean fill on in order to manage the asbestos rather than to dig, what is going to happen with compensatory flood surge; what are the plans? MR. STIMPSON: Well, that is the primary problem with putting fill on. As David says, it's the preferred alternative, but it does create other development problems. MS. BURKE: So, is there a plan? MR. STIMPSON: Again, we have -- we don't really know what will be the displacement requirements and the compensatory storage requirements and the whole drainage scheme hasn't been laid out yet. But as -- as we move forward, we're going to have to balance the flood plan issues, the compensatory storage issues, the management, the intrusive activities, all of those things will be juggled back and forth to get the best of all worlds. MS. BURKE: So, it sounds like as you go along, you will be holding a meeting addressing exactly that issue, the balance? MR. STIMPSON: Again, I think Grace is basically saying that there will be another whole plan put forward and another whole set of management plans and the grading plans. And our interpretation of the grading plans will be made available for the neighbors to review and feel, hopefully, confident that we are managing things appropriately. MS. BURKE: Okay, which brings me to my third question. As several people have said, Craig and Susan among them, there have been a number of incidents where Grace and Haley and Aldrich -- well, I'm not sure about Haley and Aldrich, but data has not been forthcoming from the responsible party. So, in the instance I mentioned about asbestos, initially it was denied that asbestos was ever used; that a neighbor had to point out that a ten-by-ten area was exempt from all the asbestos protections you mentioned; that the tank was taken out without any notification of neighbors; that the PIP process, it took three years between '95 and '98 before we had a second meeting. The neighbors have had to do all the agitation to get what is the minimum -- the minimum of responsibility for the party who has polluted the land in the first place. Now, maybe our anger seems hard to understand for the mediator who has not been part of this for the whole four years and many -- and maybe some of our comments and outbursts seem impolite and out of line. But when we have to fight this hard to get this kind of basic, decent data from the responsible party, it makes me really, really angry. And it makes me ask you every question I can think of. Because I'm not sure you haven't just parsed a sentence in Bill Clinton fashion in some way that I've missed because I'm not a scientist. So, somewhat this is a rhetorical question, but I would like to know how we are to believe that you will actually follow through on what you say you will do as you plan to -- as you do develop this site when DEP can't watch you, the neighbors can't afford to pay our own scientist to watch every single moment that you're there. How are we to be assured that you are doing right by us? [Applause] MR. STIMPSON: As you said, that's rhetorical question. I don't think there's any response that I could give you right now that you would accept. I mean, I am a professional. I'm a licensed site professional. I have licenses to keep. Haley and Aldrich is a company that's been in business for a substantial amount of time. I believe we hold a reputation of being respectable. Those are the only types of things that I can offer you. You know, I can't say that there are going to be anyone looking over our shoulder. All I can say is I understand and appreciate what is being said tonight and what's been said over the last couple of meetings. I think we are beginning to acknowledge the fact that we need to be much more conscientious of the things that we sort of dismiss as not creating risks or potential exposure concerns. And all I can say is we're learning, and we'll move forward, hopefully, to make you feel comfortable with the activities that are going on on the site. MS. BURKE: So, one thing that would make me feel much more -- well, I shouldn't say "much more," a little bit more comfortable is that these meetings, if another meeting was held. I don't think all the questions have been answered. And I think the questions have not been repetitive. They've been good, they've been informed. The neighborhood has done their homework. And I would ask the same of Grace, that they do their homework in return and hold another meeting. Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here, here. [Applause] MS. WELLS: Okay. We're going to take this question and -- DR. CROUCH: Could I answer that, as well? Put a little bit in on that. If you have questions, please call us. We're here to respond. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don't [inaudible] talk to you publicly. When is the -- we call you -- DR. CROUCH: No, no, no. Publicly -- I mean, if you have a question, you can ask us. MS. WELLS: He's not referring to the public meeting part. DR. CROUCH: No, not public meeting. Anytime. Call. We're glad to talk. Some of -- some of what you were saying reflects our different languages. And that sort of thing, one can work out. And it's easy to work out if you call and ask. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Some of it is different languages, but when someone says was there ever asbestos on the site and someone else says no. That's not different languages. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's lying. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And some of it is different language that you, as a statistician and researcher know very well that the language means one thing statistically, and a different thing in lay terms. And those of us who are researchers in the room know it and have heard it on several occasions. We have used terminology that the neighbors who are not researchers could be confused by, and I'm sure you're very well aware of those differences. And that's some of the concern here. DR. CROUCH: We are aware of that, but we miss when we're saying it. We don't realize at that point that we are saying something that you misunderstand. MS. WELLS: Okay, okay, okay. This -- I think what all of you are saying -- [Inaudible discussion among audience members] MS. WELLS: [Clapping hands] What all of you are saying is valid, and I want to talk a little bit in a minute about what other processes might be more satisfactory to you. This certainly has, I'm sure, given you a chance to air a lot of different questions. You get a chance [indicating]. Where did this gentleman go? This one, and then I'm going to stop. And then we're going to -- Joe, before we talk about what we're going to do in the future? MR. JOSEPH: Well, I need a -- there's a level of detail that's been missed here which has to do with their discussion -- MS. WELLS: Wait, you're not going to be on the mike. MR. JOSEPH: They're very -- MS. WELLS: Just hang on a second. Where did the mike go? MR. CIGNETTI: Can I talk over there, Joe? Can I ask a couple of questions over here? MS. WELLS: Please do. That's what I like, group discipline. MR. CIGNETTI: I actually wanted to stop two hours ago to ask these questions, but in the interest of allowing Ms. Church to proceed, I didn't. But I'm going to back way up to Parkway Pond. You talked about some further assessment in Parkway Pond; is that correct? MS. CHURCH: No, Jerry's Pond. MR. CIGNETTI: Oh, I thought you said Parkway Pond. MS. CHURCH: No. I'm sorry. Jerry's Pond. MR. CIGNETTI: Will the -- that's unfortunate. But -- and we -- actually, I would hope that -- that is MDC property. We did some assessment of that -- a cursory assessment of that in the Russell Field program, which we're still in the process of doing. It is a property that immediately abuts the W. R. Grace property, and we did find the site to be contaminated. MDC is aware of it. They've fenced it off. Now, the only possible -- for me, the most likely candidate for contaminating Parkway Pond, since it immediately abuts it, would be Grace. I don't know if it's possible through DEP for this to be part of the site characterization. I would certainly hope it would be, and maybe that will be in our comments. With Jerry's Pond, will the neighborhood be invited to participate in that round of sampling sediments, you said? MS. CHURCH: Actually, I didn't indicate that, but if that's your request and comment that we address, we will. The neighborhood wants to know if they can? MR. CIGNETTI: Participate at the same level or higher that it has been participating at this point. MS. CHURCH: So, that means that you would like to collect split samples? MR. CIGNETTI: I would hope so. MS. CHURCH: Okay. It will go on the record, and we'll consider it. MR. CIGNETTI: Okay. Well, I hope it gets beyond the consideration factor. But in any event, the -- the discussion about excavation down to four feet, if -- and I don't say "when," if development is allowed to proceed, that does not include -- you talked about slab on grade. Now, my understanding of slab on grade, you would need to drive pilings to anchor that slab; is that correct? So, the characterization that there will be excavation down to four feet isn't accurate since piles will be driven significantly below that level, Wes? MR. STIMPSON: Yeah, but a pile doesn't generate -- it displaces the soil, it doesn't take the soil out of the ground. So, the actual excavation that would expose the soil would be for the pile cap. MR. CIGNETTI: We will be disturbing the soil below four feet? MR. STIMPSON: We will be driving a pile into it, and that will disturb the soil. MR. CIGNETTI: And that disturbs the soil, and there will be many piles driven to anchor that slab? MR. STIMPSON: Correct. MR. CIGNETTI: That's all. And that's -- certainly for DEP, that should be a strong consideration when we talk about that since we know that there is a significant amount of asbestos at that level and below. And so, I'm glad that you answered it so we that we understand that, that that level of soil will be disturbed below four feet, whatever fashion -- pile driving, whatever it is. The DEP, for Mr. Miano, the question I have is: An AUL, or an activity use limitation, can that include up to and including no disturbance of the soil in any fashion at all? Whether it would in this site or not, I'm not saying. But can an AUL include absolutely no disturbance of the soil? MR. MIANO: Yes, it can, if it's written that way. But most of the time the way the AUL is written is that it does allow some disturbance because some things are reasonable to do. In other words, you might have utilities in a location and you need to access those utilities for emergencies, for upgrades, for repairs. You might need to -- you might have a situation where you need to do lighting. You might have a situation where you're doing a redevelopment, and you want to go in there again and put in something different or something new. Those aren't unreasonable things to have, but then the AUL references a health and safety plan and a soil management plan that has to be utilized in the process of those activities. MR. CIGNETTI: But an AUL could include up to the Draconian measure, if you will, of no disturbance of the soil? MR. MIANO: It could be written that way. MR. CIGNETTI: Thank you. MS. WELLS: Okay. This gentleman here -- MR. VOLPE: Just one second. Does anyone know that Jerry's Pond was used for cooling system during the war, when Dewey's owned the place. They put it out on pontoons. They had a -- they put these things out on pontoons. They had about two 18-inch pipes. One would go in; one would go out. Well, they built it -- they built it on floats. Then they sunk it. I think it's still there. They sunk it, and they used it as a cooling system. It could all start leaking, and all the green stuff is all over the pond. Did anybody know that? Does anybody know that? MR. STIMPSON: Yeah, I knew about that. MR. VOLPE: Oh, you knew about that, okay. Thank you. MS. WELLS: Thank you. Going to this gentleman, and then we're going to figure out what to do about Joe. MR. KAISER: My name is Steve Kaiser. I live down in Cambridgeport on Hamilton Street, but I've been around Alewife for a number of years. I'd like to raise a concept from this side of the floor which probably nobody has mentioned yet tonight. The possibility -- the possibility that Grace and Haley and Aldrich are telling the truth. I'd also like to raise another possibility -- possibility. That the data is being fudged. The reason I say that is I'm a traffic engineer by background. And last year, before the planning board, the traffic engineer who worked on this project stood up before planning board and said, "Oh, yeah, traffic engineers fudge their data, and I do it, too." Now, in every profession, there is that problem. The guys who will -- who will be paid and are willing to be paid to say what's necessary. And so there is a legitimate credibility problem. Just because there's an expert does not necessarily mean they're telling the truth. And what worries me in all of this, when I see consultants who work for major firms, whatever the result may be, that's what I call Maier's Law, M-A-I-E-R, Maier's Law. It says: Data that does not conform to the theory must be disposed of. If you want to develop the site, there's that terrible pressure to have your data work out that way. Now, my question for the developers here is: On their program, the conceptual management program for the dust, it's been described as a proactive program to manage dust. I've seen the site that Stash Horowitz described in Cambridgeport. I think that site is a terrible blemish on your credibility. I would urge all five of you to go down tomorrow morning, take a look at that site, and evaluate the quality of dust control on that site. And please report back to us in Cambridgeport and to the folks at Alewife as to whether that's an adequate site or whether it should be condemned or what is your professional judgment of it. My sense is let's suppose that we go back to the first criteria that you're on the level, this is an extraordinary blemish against all of you. So, please take a look at it tomorrow morning. Don't wait for somebody to sneak in there and clean it up ahead of time. Look at it tomorrow morning. Please report back to us. Thank you. [Applause] MS. WELLS: Okay. Joe? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do they want to respond? MS. WELLS: Do you? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will you make that commitment? MR. STIMPSON: I don't know if I can look at it tomorrow morning. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not? MR. STIMPSON: I'm trying to think about what my schedule is. If -- yeah, I -- I can -- is it in back of the Polaroid building on Memorial Drive? MR. KAISER: Yes. MR. STIMPSON: I will look at it tomorrow morning. MS. CHURCH: I'll go, too. MS. WELLS: Amy says she'll go, too. All right. Joe? MR. JOSEPH: Thank you. Just a couple of things. One is I would like to just throw out that we would like you to consider, as you do the additional sediment sampling and groundwater sampling, that you don't limit it to asbestos, that you expand it to include a wider variety of potential contaminants, those things which we know are at the site. Maybe even look for some additional things which haven't been tested for yet, like TICs. Is there any possibility of a commitment there? MS. CHURCH: No, not at this moment. We will consider it. MR. JOSEPH: Let's see, the other question I would like to ask is: This meeting really surprised me. I did not know you were going to talk about how you were going to manage as you developed the site. I'm really disturbed by this because you haven't accurately characterized the site to my way of thinking. You've come to no sort of agreement, no sort of meaningful and mutually acceptable agreement with neighbors here as to the site characterization. And yet, you leaped to a phase beyond justification. It tells me that we really have to shut down the site. We really don't have any choice. We're going to have to get a moratorium on the site because you guys aren't really serious. You know, you're getting so far ahead of yourself you can't even ask the most logical questions, simply because you're too far ahead of yourself. And then you have to take steps backwards. Oh, we don't know about our plans. Oh, we do know about our plans, but oh, we don't know about our plans. So, to my way of thinking, you're really leaving the neighborhood with very little alternative but to change the rules for you because you have not presented something that's credible and something that's acceptable. And it seems to me that that's not an impossibility. That can be done. But you've gotten so far ahead of yourself that you're making it impossible to do something that could satisfy. So, one of the things I would -- I would throw out here is since you've done this, since you're now into the management of the -- of the project phase or discussion of how you pose to manage the dust, one of the things I'd like to do is if you're proposing to do more substantial testing in locations where you plan to disturb soil, particularly where you know there's contamination, and you're going to do more sampling, I'd like a commitment from you that that we will be able to go on site with you with our LSPs or whomever and take split samples of those sites. Now, this is going to be a very expensive process as I -- as I foresee it. We don't have a lot of money. We get, occasionally, a $10,000 grant from DEP, and the hoops that we have to jump through in terms of administration are not only obnoxious, they're nauseous. And we shouldn't have to do it. We shouldn't have to be the DEP, but, and I'm not offending Jack here. Jack is just one guy. But we shouldn't have to do this stuff, but yet we find that we do have to do it. Now Jack has told us, well sorry, this is -- nothing has been assigned to the site. Nobody is actually overseeing the site from DEP. So, you're going to have to do the job. Well, if that's the case, and we're going to have to take more split samples, I want a commitment from you right now that you are going to pay for that split-sample analysis. Not the DEP. Not coming out of the taxpayer's pocket. Not coming out of the taxpayer's and other people who live in this neighborhood's pocket, but out of your pocket. You created this mess. You created it, and I want you to pay for it. We're sick of that. So, a commitment right here and now. Are you going to let us on the site, take split samples of all those locations, and pay for it? MR. STIMPSON: I'll address the first part of it, Joe. There is -- Grace made a commitment when the sampling plan came up to have this meeting to present the results of the Phase I study and also to discuss how we're going to evaluate and characterize the risk associated with our findings and what our conceptual plans were for going forward and managing the risk during development. That is the purpose -- stated purpose of this meeting, and that's what we're doing. So, to sit here and say that you -- that we're doing something inappropriately, I take exception to. As far as whether or not you're going to come on the site and I'm going to pay for it, I am not going to pay for your sampling. MR. JOSEPH: Okay. I am talking about W. R. Grace. You know it, and I know it. All right. So, what I want from W. R. Grace is a commitment that they will pay for the split sampling. This is getting -- getting to be ridiculous. We shouldn't have to -- the taxpayer shouldn't have to be paying for split samples to keep you honest. If the DEP representative says to us, you are the DEP, okay. So, now we're going to go after you for the money to pay for it. Are you going to pay for the split sample analysis, yes or no to W. R. Grace? MR. WARDZEL: We'll consider it, but I'm not going to commit to pay for every -- any sample that you want to take a split of. MR. JOSEPH: Okay. So, what you're saying is that you cannot guarantee -- what do you guarantee? What are you going to guarantee here this evening, with respect to this issue? You opened it up already. You are into the management aspect of this. So, if you are now into the management aspect of it, let's develop it fully and get the whole scenario. No more bits and pieces. What are you going to do; are you going to pay for this? MS. WELLS: Okay, Joe. Joe, let him answer. MR. WARDZEL: Well, Joe, you know, what we've tried to do in the last couple of months is try to have some cooperation with -- with you coming on site and taking split samples, okay. So, we've tried to work together on this. So, I think the only way we can -- I'm not going to commit that we're going to say that if you want to take 500 samples, or something like that, then I'm going to go pay for that. I'm not going to commit to that right now. However, what I will commit to is that we'll consider it and work together to try to see what's reasonable. And if something is reasonable, we'll work with it. That's what we did before. That's the way we want to go forward. MR. JOSEPH: Well, it seems to me what's reasonable, John, is your company created the pollution. Your company is responsible for it, whether it was Dewey and Almy or whether it was Grace, it's actually the same company because it's consolidated. MR. WARDZEL: I understand that. MR. JOSEPH: Since you're responsible for the pollution, I don't want the taxpayers to pay for this. I don't want it to come from the DEP because that's my money. I want it to come from Grace. You created the problem; you pay for it. MR. WARDZEL: We are -- we are paying for it by all the samples we're taking. MR. JOSEPH: But I haven't heard the commitment. I have not heard the commitment. And as far as our split-sampling protocol, we've been reasonable about that. If you want us to be unreasonable, we can oblige you, too. MR. WARDZEL: Joe -- MR. JOSEPH: But we have been reasonable about that. MR. WARDZEL: Joe, we're not going to commit tonight to pay for any split sample that -- that you want. What we want to do is go forward the same way that we worked before with the split samples and sharing data and working together to see what's reasonable. MR. JOSPEH: But we want you to pay for it, your company. Not the DEP, not the taxpayer, not the neighbors, but W. R. Grace. It's your pollution, and you should pay for the split sampling. MR. WARDZEL: Joe, I understand your point, okay. MR. JOSEPH: Okay. MR. WARDZEL: I'm not deaf. I understand where you're coming from. Like I said, we'll go forward. We'll consider it. We want to work with you. I think that's what we tried to do, you know, recently with the split samples. And that's how we'll go forward. MS. WELLS: Okay. Let's stop for a second and see -- it's getting quite late, people are getting quite frayed. It's time, perhaps, to think about where we go from here. So, let's have some ideas. Is this kind of forum the best way to continue? Are there other possibilities that we might help create and offer you that might also get you information and satisfaction that you need? I don't know. There are a lot of different ways to do these things other than this kind of meeting where many people could be present. I'm just inviting you to think about whether there are other possibilities that we might create that would also meet your needs. Yes? MR. KAMMAN: Daniel Kamman, 69 Harvey Street. I don't know if there are other possibilities that would work, but one possibility that was suggested, that is people calling up Grace, and I appreciate the offer to talk, is a very poor substitute for a discussion in a group because none of us in this group are sufficiently knowledgeable to understand all aspects. And if I call up Grace and get one answer, I don't have any convenient way of sharing it with the other 30 people in this room. MS. WELLS: Well, obviously, I'm speaking for myself as a facilitator/mediator -- sorry about my voice -- and I've had no discussion W. R. Grace or Haley and Aldrich about this idea. However, I'm observing that there may be ways to do either smaller groups or people who have special interest groups. It would take a little -- it would take a little planning and some thinking together about what might work. Or there might be a way to do some representation where people -- a consistent group of people could meet over time then have a second layer. There are a lot of different ways to approach this. I'm not suggesting that you don't want to do what you're doing now. I'm just offering that there may be ways that would be less frustrating that you could address some of the -- of the concerns that you have and maybe negotiate around those. But as I said, I'm just simply asking you are you open to any other possibilities that might meet your needs? Not that -- I don't want -- don't have any magic to offer, but are you open? Lisa? MS. BURKE: Even though this format may feel frustrating to all sides of the issue, I think the number of questions generated is a sign of -- and some agreements made, not many but a few -- is a sign of a fairly effective meeting, even if tempers have flared. The question is, to me -- and this is me, obviously, only at this point -- is when will a response be made? And what would be helpful to me is that all of this -- all of these questions, Grace had a little time to think about, a few weeks, and points and DEP, because there are some that involve DEP, and then came back and said here are your questions; here are the points of agreement; here's what we intend to do about them. That, for me, would be -- MS. WELLS: A good starting point? MS. BURKE: Yes. MS. WELLS: And the other -- the other observation that I would make as I've listened to you tonight is that there's much more data to be generated -- information to be generated by Grace that will enable them to answer some of the questions you've asked, but they're -- they haven't gone that far yet. I understand that, but my observation is that it will take a little while for some things to be answered. So -- yes? Give her -- let's have the mike, please. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think Lisa's point is wonderful. I'd just like to add two things to it. One, and Lisa you pointing to the charts, while many questions are there, I would like to extend it to the actual tape and transcript where all of the questions in their original form and all of the requests are accurately there, because I'm concerned as things get transcribed in note form it may not be accurate or complete. MS. WELLS: These are meant as a backup. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. I just wanted to make sure since heads were nodding and Lisa was pointing there. MS. WELLS: And your thought about the tape is? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That there are lots of concerns and questions that could be responded to that are on the tape and on the transcript. So, that that be reviewed so that all of those things are responded to, in addition to what's on these charts. MS. WELLS: Let's get a response from Amy on that. MS. CHURCH: Yeah, I can actually -- I can respond to that. The last time we had a -- sorry, in October when we had a public meeting, there were comments, there were pieces of paper put up on the board, and we also received written comments from a number of people, the DEP, and the City of Cambridge during the 20-day comment period. And we took the questions and the comments that came out in the transcription of the meeting and paraphrased them as best as possible and answered, to my knowledge, every one of them as thoroughly as we could. And we published that when we put out the final plan. So, the intention is to do the same for both the meeting that we had two weeks ago and the subject material that was brought up then and the meeting that we're having tonight. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I've seen that document, and it's helpful, although the paraphrasing, obviously, leaves some room for loss of objectivity. My concern is that the facilitator, I think, was suggesting that if there was some time before the next meeting that those concerns would be answered to us. And so if that published document comes out later, that won't help with what Lisa is suggesting. That's my first point. My second one is that if there's a time gap that may be helpful, I'm concerned what that means about the 20-day comment period and whether things would go forward regardless of when the next meeting happens. MS. WELLS: Let's give them a moment to reflect. [Discussion among panel members] MS. CHURCH: Are you asking the things that are subject to comment tonight that we presented, are we going to go ahead and do anything that would cause those plans to be implemented before the comments have been fully received and addressed? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. MS. CHURCH: And agreed upon? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. MS. CHURCH: No, I don't believe that, at this point, we have any plans to do anything on the site. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If that meeting happens later than that 20-day period whether that's going to be part of accepted comments. MS. CHURCH: I see what you're saying, but since we don't have an agreement as of yet as how we're going to go forward, I can't really answer it. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just want to make sure that any agreement takes it into account. MS. CHURCH: Right. And your concern is on the record, as well. And I wanted to say one other thing, and I know you guys don't like it when I say this, but one way to keep me from paraphrasing what you say during this meeting is to put your comments in writing and send them to me, and I can quote them. I will put your comments and your letter in the document, and we will answer them directly. So, that's helpful for everyone. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: [Inaudible question] MS. CHURCH: Yes, they can be. MS. WELLS: And we've been working hard -- MS. CHURCH: But sometimes it's a whole paragraph, you know. And the -- we have to make an interpretation of what we think the context of the question was. And I don't like doing that. And that's why I would prefer if people really feel strongly about something, you put it in writing and send it to me -- e-mail or regular mail. MS. WELLS: Okay, we're talking about process here, so. You've been waiting awhile, and you've been waiting awhile [indicating]. MR. HOLLMAN: It seems the relationship -- I've been involved in this for a number of years. It seems this is pretty much an adversarial relationship so far. I suggested to some of my neighbors that if that was the case, we go on the offensive. To those who I suggested that, I also explicitly said that going on the offensive did not mean dropping courtesy. And I think that has been dropped in some cases. And I think the five of you have taken a great deal. And I would just like to acknowledge you have heard some things that probably you should not have had to hear. And I'll leave it at that. In terms of trying to diffuse it and making this a less-adversarial relationship, I think Grace could go a long way towards doing that if it gave the neighborhood a sign, not with words, but by action, by deed, something that very explicitly makes clear that it is putting the public health -- that it is giving priority to public health greater that the priority it gives to fulfilling MCP requirements and the priority that it gives to development. That is something which is within Grace's power to do, and I would hope that they would do that. But I think the ball is in your court. MS. CHURCH: Aram, could you give me an example of what you visualize that symbol or that approach to be? MR. HOLLMAN: I think a number of people have pointed out that you have combined the characterization phase with the remediation and construction phases of this. I think a number of people have pointed out that they should not be combined in that manner and have suggested a number of alternatives in that direction. That's one possibility. I think there are others. And I think they have been said. They're in the notes. MR. WEITZMAN: I have a proposal. Actually, just a few housekeeping things. One is we never quite ascertained when and if the neighborhood can get a hold of the tapes from today and last meeting. So, I'm hoping before we leave tonight there's a commitment on when the neighborhood will get the tapes and the transcript. MS. WELLS: Okay. Can you all figure out about that so we can answer that question. MR. WEITZMAN: The tape and the transcript. Here's my proposal, though. It involves the tape and the transcript. My proposal is that in the next two weeks, the first thing is that each -- each -- each - - I won't call it "sides," but all the parties here have copies of the tapes and the last two meetings, they have a chance to really review them and the transcripts -- those two items. And then perhaps Grace and Haley and Aldrich could write a written response to all the points that we brought up. When they've completed that, at the end of that period when it feels like people have had a chance to digest all of these items, I would suggest maybe three weeks or four weeks, whatever is needed, we schedule another meeting. So, it's not -- again, it's not just a meeting where people come and throw things out and nothing gets dealt with. It really is -- and not just here to vent, but there's a real purpose to that meeting, which is to review a long thought out response from Grace. The neighborhood has had a chance to digest all the information so it -- the meeting really does have a purpose. It's not just, as I think, perhaps, the members of Grace feel, we're just having these meetings to vent and hold things up. We're not. We have a very specific purpose, which is just to simply get as much information out in public. Because when these things go into documents, they really just disappear from the neighborhood's perspective. And you will find that, actually, these people are very well educated and will respond to well thought out responses to all of the things we've brought up. It's amply evident. I'm not going to keep going over what people have brought up. There were a lot of items that were not fully prepared tonight from Grace. I think they've acknowledged that. And I'm suggesting that we start a process that has the goal of having everything aired and looked at and we have another -- set up another meeting say three weeks or a month, at which point we could, once again, really go over these issues. That's my proposal. Specifically, someone has suggested that the transcripts or the tapes could be made available at the libraries. And then Grace's response could also be put in the libraries to the transcripts. And at that point, thereafter is the meeting. That's my proposal. MS. WELLS: Are you responding -- are you adding to something he is saying? MR. KAMMAN: Yeah. If those tapes -- the transcripts could also be made in electronic form, assuming that they are made, they are available. If they're done that way, like on a word processor, we can share files on a floppy disk much readily than we can here. MS. WELLS: Let's see. Do you need to caucus a moment, or are you ready to respond? MR. WARDZEL: Well, I think in terms of the transcripts, what -- I don't know the exact date when they'll be done, you know. The one from the previous meeting, there were some errors with names, and we're trying to go through and, you know, make sure it's accurate, you know, in terms of misspellings of names and things like that. We're not changing the content but just making sure the right names, I mean, for -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it that important who is asking the question? MR. WARDZEL: Well, they had Mario -- what was -- what was Mario? MR. FAVORITO: I was Ed, and then I was a third person. MS. WELLS: And some of you were different people, as well. MR. WARDZEL: So, there's issues like that. But what I will commit to is with that and once we get this back, and I would assume this should be in the next two weeks, I mean I don't know, but I would hope we could do that, we'll put them in the depository where we put all our other information. MR. KAMMAN: In electronic form? MS. WELLS: Electronically? Will it be on a computer? MR. KAMMAN: No, well -- [Discussion between the reporter and Mr. Favorito] MS. WELLS: Mario? MR. FAVORITO: Leaning over here, I've never met this lady before, but she is a court stenographer, and under her rules or whatever -- she can speak for herself -- they can't give us the tapes. They can give us the transcripts. MR. WEITZMAN: This is not a court, Mario. THE REPORTER: I cannot give you my tapes. MS. WELLS: Can they be dubbed? MR. WEITZMAN: Duplicates? THE REPORTER: They can give you their tapes. They're not mine. These tapes over here are not mine [indicating]. But I can't give you my tapes. [Inaudible discussion among audience members] MS. WELLS: Look, look, they're trying to - - [clapping]. Hang on. MR. FAVORITO: Look, the transcripts will be transcribed and certified and notarized just the way they are in court. And we'll provide the transcripts. That's all I can do. MR. WEITZMAN: I thought I understood the stenographer to say there were other tapes available which could be made available; is that -- did I misunderstand you? THE REPORTER: There are other tapes that are not my tapes, but I can't speak for them. MR. WEITZMAN: Where are those tapes? Are there tapes in the machine there? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, she's talking about people -- MR. WEITZMAN: No. She's saying there's a tape there. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, there's another tape here. MR. NAKAGAWA: One's yours, and one is hers. MR. WEITZMAN: Can that tape be made available? MS. WELLS: So, John? MR. WARDZEL: Yeah, I mean, I'll give you the -- we have nothing to hide here. I mean, we'll give you the tape; we'll give you the transcript. But, you know, just like I say, we'll put them -- MS. WELLS: So, you can dub the tapes, and you can have them, in addition to the ones that go into the -- into the repositories. You can -- some of you can have them to be used. Is that what you're -- is that -- would that meet the need for now? Yes? MR. KAMMAN: Dan Kamman, 69 Harvey Street. I'm not sure my question was understood. I am not asking -- I, personally, am not asking for the tapes, but assuming that the stenographer -- the court reporter is generating the transcript on the computer, a floppy disk file, like a Microsoft Word file could be provided, in addition to the printed copy, that would make sharing this easier for those of us who are using computers. [Discussion between the reporter and Mr. Favorito] MR. FAVORITO: She said we can have an ASCII disk, but it's not going to be certified. MR. KAMMAN: That's fine. MS. WELLS: All right. So, it sounds like the answer is yes. Is that right? MR. FAVORITO: Yes. MS. WELLS: Okay, all right. Yes, Dan, or Ralph, I'm sorry. MR. YODER: Ralph Yoder. I have a question about the 20-day comment period. I had some questions on some of the aspects of wildlife and we didn't get a chance to get into that at all. And I wondered if -- if I had questions and I submitted them both to Haley and Aldrich and to Grace, if those would be put on the record and -- MR. WARDZEL: Absolutely. Absolutely. MS. CHURCH: That's what I keep on trying to say is that anything you submit to us, and plus the comments that are in the transmittal as well, are going to be addressed, put on paper, and published and made available to everyone. And your comment will be published, as well. MR. YODER: And I'd particularly like to say this to Mario and John that we'd love to have bluebirds on that site rather than buildings. And I understand that there are some in Belmont, and it would be awful easy for Lou and I and Paul Miranda to put up bluebird boxes over there and owl boxes. Thanks. MS. WELLS: Yes. And then I want to see if I can summarize where you are or test with you where you are on the next steps. Yes? MR. CIGNETTI: Yes, I'm sorry, I didn't identify myself when I spoke earlier about pile driving activity and use limitations and split samples for the neighbors and additional testing. My name is Peter Cignetti, with a "C." C-I-G-N-E-T-T-I. I'm from 5 Theriault Court. And I did want to ask the person who is taking the notes to include, which was not and is very important, on the board that it is acknowledged by the licensed site professional, Wes Stimpson, that pile driving will exceed four-feet level to anchor the slabs and that that will, in some fashion, be a disturbance of the soil. Have I characterized that -- that is -- so, I'd like that to be noted. MS. WELLS: Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Peter. Thanks. All right, is this -- where is this going? MR. BRANDON: Hard to say. Michael Brandon again. Just to follow up one other point on the pile driving. My understanding is that pile drivers can create a great deal of vibration. And we're talking about concerns about soil disturbance and generating soil into the air. That's another concern that I'd like to have logged and addressed as we're considering what's going to go forth. I have sort of a question/comment about the airborne asbestos management program. It's -- it's described as a "conceptual" plan. And I'm not sure what that means. Does that mean it's still in its early stages, or this is what you conceive the plan to be? And then I -- I just want to -- well, why don't you answer that, if you could, Wes. MR. STIMPSON: Sure. The -- the word "conceptual" is used because it outlines the criteria that we're proposing to use, but it doesn't have the details of the site development. And therefore, we will apply those criteria to the actual site development plan once it's emerged. And you'll have an actual management plan once the development is finalized. MR. BRANDON: Will there -- will there be further opportunity, or I guess I would say, I would like to see further opportunity for a public meeting to specifically look at that more closely. I still have a lot of concerns about it, such as the -- the one hundred square foot excavation limit seems arbitrary to me. I don't understand why, and I'd like to explore that further. Questions about why you're proposing screening the exterior of the area but not the top. MS. WELLS: Let's see if we can get a comment about what the next process is. MR. BRANDON: Will there be a further opportunity? MR. STIMPSON: I think that's what we're discussing right now is, from what I'm hearing, there's a request that we respond to what we've heard tonight, we respond to written comments that we receive. And then there's a request that we get together and discuss those responses and sort of work them out. That's what I'm hearing. MS. WELLS: And the things that you may not know yet, Wes, that he's talking about, things that you may not have the answers to -- MR. STIMPSON: Those are going to still be unanswered. MS. WELLS: But talk about what happens -- what are the steps that you have to go through as you move forward with -- with elaborating on the conceptual plan and other development activities. What are the -- what happens? MR. STIMPSON: Are you asking me to respond to that now or as part of the... MS. WELLS: Well, I'm saying there are steps that -- so the public will know. John or Mario, do you want to say what you're going to be obligated to do? MR. STIMPSON: Well, I think we're still discussing, sort of, what the request is. That was my understanding of what the request is. MS. WELLS: Well, I think it's two parts. He was talking about things that -- that you may not know for some time, I think. MR. STIMPSON: Well, there's certain -- you were talking about criteria and the conceptual plan. And those are pretty -- we can discuss those as to why we assume the hundred square feet, why the downsizing of the area, you know. Those are all valid questions that we can respond to and we can have a discussion about it. The other one as to how it's actually going to be applied to a development and where it's going to be done on the property, specifically, we're -- I can't respond to at the present time. But that's another whole process. MS. WELLS: That's what I'm asking you to do is to -- MR. FAVORITO: We can't build anything until we go to the Conservation Commission and -- MS. WELLS: Use the mike, Mario, please. MR. FAVORITO: The actual development process will actually -- will have to be a public process. I mean, we have to get -- put an application in with the Conservation Commission. That will be a public process. The whole zoning requirements requires us to deal with -- discussions with the Planning Board. I mean, the whole process will be completely transparent and a public process where everyone can continue to have input, as is the custom and requirement and procedure as you go forward with these developments. So, it's not going to end all of a sudden. It's going to continue and develop as we go on. MS. WELLS: Okay. Thank you. All right, yes? You are? MR. KELLEY: I'd like to clarify something. My name is Craig Kelley. I live at 6 St. Gerard Terrace. The Planning Board has consistently not looked at environmental considerations. So has the Conservation Commission not looked at contamination issues. So, if you're talking about yeah, we can have impact or input on flooding issues, yeah, maybe down the line. If we can have input on zoning issues maybe down the line. If we can talk about asbestos in front of the Planning Board or in front of the Conservation Commission, they're going to tell us it's inappropriate and it's not the place to address it. This forum is, and repeated parts of this forum is, but don't try and put it off on other meetings with other commissions. MS. WELLS: I may have created that by suggesting that there were a lot -- there's a lot more yet to come in terms of detail, not just the forum. Yes? MS. MIETH: I'm Carolyn Mieth, 15 Brookford Street, and I serve on the Cambridge Planning Board. And the Planning Board has consistently declined to consider environmental issues. It's not their bailiwick, their expertise and says it's the Conservation Commission, the Council, MEPA, DEP. So, tonight I feel that DEP has no person assigned to the site. And we've asked -- someone -- Lisa or someone else asked who was looking over this process on behalf of the residents. I was very disturbed that it isn't necessarily DEP really taking a look at what's going on for the neighborhood. I share -- even though, you know, I'm a member of the board, and I was in the minority about that we should look at environmental issues, I was in the minority and was overruled. So, I look to -- I expected DEP to be the group that was going to look out for the neighborhood interest. And so I would ask -- Mr. Miano was very forthcoming in his answers. And I would ask that he go back to his agency and see what more they can do to look after the neighborhood's interest. Thank you. [Applause] MS. WELLS: Okay. MR. WEITZMAN: Purely process. MS. WELLS: Yeah. MR. WEITZMAN: To continue my proposal, which is based on what the people have talked about. I -- my proposal would be, at this point, that we set a time for when the tapes and the transcripts would be available at the library. I would suggest within a couple of days. I don't see any reason -- I'd ask the transcriber. How long does it take? THE REPORTER: This isn't the only thing I have to do. So, you'll have it within -- they will have it within 14 days. MR. WEITZMAN: Fourteen days? THE REPORTER: Within 14 days at the latest. MR. WARDZEL: We're not going to -- we're not going to hold it up. MR. WEITZMAN: Okay. I hear you. So, that would be -- so, the tapes -- MR. WARDZEL: That's what I said was two weeks. MR. WEITZMAN: So, the tapes and the transcripts get to the library in two weeks. We need a little time to digest them. We would hope that this is all part of the site -- as Mike pointed out, I think, at length, we're hoping that this is all part of the site characterization process. And we're really hoping that it doesn't end as -- as was -- the plan was, at the last meeting and this meeting, it shows that there's a lot that's going on just as part of the site characterization. So, our hope would be that the site characterization gets extended and the 20-day comment period does not start until these public meetings have sufficiently followed the process. And the process I'm suggesting is two weeks from now the tapes go into the public repository, and the transcripts. The neighborhood has a chance to digest them. W. R. Grace does. They have a chance to write a response. So, perhaps in -- I don't know. How long do you think it would take W. R. Grace to come up with a response to each of the comments that people have made specifically, particular areas that you said "we'd consider" I think was the words you used, many comments people said. You said, "We'd consider," which was fair. How long do you think you would need after those two weeks to consider and to write specific responses? MS. WELLS: Let's give them a moment to consult with each other, okay. [Discussion among panel members] MR. FAVORITO: The last time it took about a month after the end of the comment period to get the report finalized. This time, based on the large number of questions, Amy thinks it will probably take about six weeks to get all the questions that are -- have been submitted, that will be submitted before the end of the 20-day comment period, that are on the transcript. MS. WELLS: Hang on just a minute, Mario. Could we -- excuse me, gentlemen, could we just have one conversation at a time, please. Thank you. MR. FAVORITO: So, at this point, it doesn't look like the final report -- if we go ahead 20 days, get all the comments, and let's say that's 20 days plus six weeks at a minimum, that is -- this is mid-June, July -- I mean, we're probably talking some -- first week of August, at the earliest before the final report comes out, which responds to all of the issues that were raised here. And after we get that report, we can have some conversations to determine whether or not it makes sense to have yet another meeting. But that's the -- that's the time frame we're talking about. MR. WEITZMAN: So, you're saying you're not -- my proposal is that we are clear at this point that another meeting is necessary. MR. FAVORITO: I don't think we can be -- I don't think we can be clear at this moment. We need to run out the process, take a look at what the comments are, have the comments out there, have the answers out there and review them. At that point, we can discuss whether or not it makes sense to have another meeting. It's premature to commit to a meeting at this TIME. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who are you going to have that discussion with? MR. FAVORITO: Well, I assume with Lisa and, you know -- MR. JOSEPH: No. No, no, no. It's got to be the entire neighborhood. And that's the meeting. MR. FAVORITO: Well, we're not going to commit to have another meeting at this point in time. We will get the report out. We probably won't have it until the beginning of August or thereabouts. At that point, we can discuss whether it's appropriate to have yet another meeting. MR. KAMMAN: But there's no formal body, no individual representative that you can have that discussion with. MR. FAVORITO: No, no, no. If we have another meeting, it will be the way we've had all these meetings. We will put a notice in the newspaper. We will make it known that there will be a meeting at a certain point in time. It won't happen in the middle, you know, without notice. MR. KAMMAN: This is Dan Kamman again. Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you said that when the report came out there would be discussion as to whether or not to have another meeting. Did I misunderstand you? MR. FAVORITO: There will be consideration as to whether or not we should have another meeting. MR. KAMMAN: And you will decide among yourselves? MR. FAVORITO: Well, you know -- MR. KAMMAN: I'm just trying to be clear. I'm not trying to bully you. MR. FAVORITO: We will decide among ourselves, but nothing happens in a vacuum. I mean, you know, we've been at this process for I don't know how many years. And we've always committed, continue to commit to communicate as best we can with the neighborhood. That will continue. It's an informal process, but it happens. MR. JOSEPH: Except when your removing UST tanks. MS. WELLS: Okay, okay. MR. FAVORITO: Joe -- MR. WEITZMAN: All right, let's -- let's -- MS. WELLS: Hey, hey, hey. MR. WEITZMAN: Guys, guys. MR. FAVORITO: Joe, please, I ask you don't be confrontational. MR. JOSEPH: I'm sorry, Mario. I'm sorry. We're asking you to do a simple thing, which is to just say yes, there will be another meeting down the line to talk about the results of the plan. MR. FAVORITO: And I'm not saying -- well, you heard what I have to say. I'm not going to debate it. MS. BURKE: I appreciate that you're staying so late, that you advertised the meetings, that you had a subsequent one, but I really believe that the PIP, the public information process was designed with -- as contentious and annoying on both sides as this conversation is -- with exactly the kinds of information that we generate here. There are tons of questions and a few points of agreement. I imagine that when you respond, which I really appreciate your doing -- and I appreciate your making it available, it makes a big difference -- that the conversation really and truly will only be furthered and neighborhood back -- you know, hairs on the back of the neck will go down if indeed people feel like a process that is fair and responsible and informative has been followed. If these questions are left, kind of, on the wall, in the library, not addressed in this kind of forum, I think that you -- I think you are adding to a reputation that is one you don't want to have in the neighborhood, particularly with your ideas about what you want to do on this site. MR. FAVORITO: I thought we had improved our reputation significantly over the last two years, and hopefully that will continue. MS. BURKE: I hope it will continue, too. And I think another meeting would really make -- I -- these are -- these are really informed, not -- in my opinion, not obnoxious, informed questions. People have done their homework. And they are asking, can we -- in many different ways they're saying can we be assured that Grace will do the right thing on this site by us and by your employees. And you can answer -- begin to answer the community, yes -- or continue to answer the community, yes we will, by hosting a meeting -- or having a meeting, you don't have to host it -- that addresses those questions to the public. MR. FAVORITO: I'm going to say one more thing. MS. WELLS: Do you want to use the mike, please, Mario. MR. FAVORITO: We're here tonight, and we were here two weeks ago because we made a commitment. And the commitment was to have these reports discussed in a public forum. Now, that was something that we did because we felt it was important. We continue to feel it's important, and I -- what I'm concerned about is that there is an undercurrent that says that somehow we are not communicating, haven't been responsive, when the fact that you're here is because we invited you here to hear your comments. And I am a little bit concerned that when we have an open -- or try to have an open dialogue, set up the meeting, advertise it, notify it, ask you to come here to give us your best judgment, your best comments, that in some cases, your comments are delivered in an accusatory way which impugns the credibility of our -- of our licensed site professionals. That doesn't advance credibility. It doesn't advance cooperation. What it does is set up tension. There's no need for that. We have a problem here, an issue here. We have to address the asbestos on the site. That is an issue we need to address, you need to address. I would hope we could do it cooperatively. But I -- what I hear is disbelief, lack of credibility, and a lot of rhetoric which is not helpful. MS. BURKE: I'm all for continuing this new improved pattern. And I think one way to continue it -- MS. WELLS: Hang on. MS. BURKE: I'm sorry. I'm all for continuing the new and improved pattern. I really appreciate the ads in the newspaper. I really appreciate the meetings. You might remember that from '95 to '98, there were no public process meetings. Actually, there was one in '95. And then there were none until 1998. So, this is a really big change, and I'm really happy about it. I'm asking you to continue that change, to continue doing something that I'm -- I can't imagine is pleasant for -- it's not pleasant, you know, I was nauseous earlier in the meeting. It's not necessarily pleasant for most of us. On the other hand, I really believe the only way that Grace can be the good neighbor it has advertised itself to be in many regards -- with the party it had in the summer a year or two ago, in the ads, etcetera -- is by continuing to have these conversations which are sometimes difficult. There's a great deal of response that you can give to all these questions. And there perhaps is a great deal more common ground that can be hammered down in meetings that are sometimes contentious, sometimes frustrating. Sometimes people say things that are hard to hear, unpleasant, etcetera. But I do think we are advancing. I do believe that. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think that. So, that is why I'm asking for, and I think all of us are asking for -- that's why we're all still sitting here at, you know, 11:05 is we want another meeting. MR. FAVORITO: I hear you. Lisa, I always hear you. MS. WELLS: If I understand what has transpired here, it will be some weeks yet before the information will be there. I won't be too long, a couple of weeks before you can have the transcript. But in terms of the responses, it may be the end of August or sometime in August. And if I understand it correctly, there is a commitment to continued involvement and dialogue. And maybe there are some ways at that juncture that we could approach some of the discussion with everybody having the information that's different from a report, as you received tonight, where you're having to do challenges and other kinds of things. It isn't to say you wouldn't have differences. I don't mean that. But maybe there are some ways, even in a big public meeting, where we could think of creating a somewhat different approach to your conversation. And if Grace wishes, we'll talk with them about some different options and with some of you about what some different options might be, in the meantime. And see if there is some way to create an, you know, more constructive ways of approaching these things. Okay. Is that something you would like to have happen, is that we'd look at the most constructive ways to prepare for your next interaction? MR. WEITZMAN: One amendment. It's very important that the again be -- this -- the -- excuse me. From my perspective, it's very important that the comment period, because the only comments that will get into the public record are during the -- the PIP process. So, from my perspective, it's very important that while the site is still being characterized -- by the admission of Amy Church, the Haley and Aldrich map was inaccurate. So, we need to see an accurate map, at the very least of what the contamination is, and more discussion and response to our questions before the neighborhood can fully and informatively participate in the public information process. So, I -- the only amendment I would make is that we extend the PIP process to some point in the future. I was suggesting the next meeting be it. It sounds like the meeting in the fall should be the right meeting. But perhaps there's another -- MS. WELLS: I think there's some -- MR. FAVORITO: I really think that the -- we're going to run a 20-day public comment period from this evening and run it 20 days. I think we need to have milestones. And we need to have deadlines where people put in their comments. And so I'm not disposed to extend the 20- day comment period. MR. WEITZMAN: Mario, would you -- would you agree that, if you're talking about milestones, one milestone would be from your presentation that documents and information that is complete be presented to the public? If that milestone has not been met, how can we proceed to other milestones? MR. FAVORITO: Wes -- Amy, when was the report filed and distributed? Before this meeting, wasn't it? MS. CHURCH: The preliminary data report was put out, I believe, in February of this year. MR. FAVORITO: February. MS. CHURCH: And the final report was put out in early May. MR. FAVORITO: Early May? MS. CHURCH: Yeah, in May. I've put out so many reports. MR. FAVORITO: And we're here in the middle of June. MS. CHURCH: And the information that was included in the report was thorough, as far as the representation of the results of the TEM analyses and the other data that we collected. It was just this -- well, the overhead that I had up before that I made for this presentation. MR. WEITZMAN: The inaccurate one. May I ask a very simple question? This is site characterization. You can -- you -- I'll go home, and I will say they have characterized the site if you can answer my question. My question is very simple. Please characterize this site. Why is there a half million pounds of asbestos on your site? Where is it on your site? So that we can proceed beyond characterization. If you can satisfy me that we understand it, what's in Building 28; what's in Zone 5; why is there a half million, at minimum, pounds of asbestos on your site? How did it get there, and how are we going to proceed? MR. FAVORITO: At least at this phase, we're going to proceed on the basis that the 20-day comment period has started to run, and you need to get your comments in within that period of time. MR. WEITZMAN: I'm sure you can understand that that would not satisfy us. MR. FAVORITO: I know that, but we have to move along. MS. WELLS: And if I understand it correctly, even though the 20-day comment and the formal process, doesn't mean that they would stop listening about things that -- that you wanted to do. Is that a fair assumption? MR. FAVORITO: Absolutely. That is absolutely true. MR. HOROWITZ: And as a point of information, you are going to get a transcript and respond to each comment verbally today, as if it was a written comment in your next document. So, that will be included? MS. WELLS: That's correct. MR. WARDZEL: We'll respond in writing. MR. FAVORITO: We'll respond in writing, absolutely. MR. WARDZEL: Absolutely, absolutely. MR. HOLLMAN: One further thing. I'm wondering if -- again, I'll address my question to Jack. I realize that DEP has limited oversight power regarding this whole process. Nevertheless, would DEP be in the position to recommend something in the way of process in the manner of regarding how to proceed further here? And would that carry significant weight? MR. MIANO: I think the 20-day comment period is -- I may not be a hundred percent correct in this. We were trying to review this issue a little while ago. But I believe the 20-day comment period is -- is a regulatory requirement. And I don't think that -- that we should require Grace to extend it. And I want to say that -- I think this is an echo of what Amy had commented on a little while ago. I think you will be -- everybody would be doing themselves a disservice if the only information they relied upon to make judgments about what was going on at this site is the information that they get at these public meetings, because the public meetings are very abbreviated compared to the amount of information that is disseminated and that you need to look at. So, don't rely on only this to make a judgment. Get -- get a hold of a report or talk to somebody that you trust who has reviewed that report before you make any decisions. Now, the way I understand it, you should have a pretty good amount of time to -- to prepare for your next meeting, whenever that might be, because you're going to have at least the time between now and the transcripts. And you have this 20 days. So, I think you're okay there. I know you would like to have more, but I don't see a regulatory requirement to extend it. MR. HOLLMAN: I'm not -- I'm not asking for more time, although I'm sure that W. R. Grace probably wants more time than that to respond to the very large volume of comments. I'm just wondering if DEP can make any significant recommendation to W. R. Grace and Haley and Aldrich that they take a little bit more time and that they allow us a little time. And maybe commit to getting back to us. MS. WELLS: Let me just -- I think there -- there's been an agreement about complete response to everything. I want to try to get underneath the question. Is the concern that you're trying to address here about the extension a concern that some of your issues will be dismissed, put aside, not addressed or whatever, because of the 20 days? MR. WEITZMAN: No, no, no. MS. WELLS: Then if you felt that that was going to occur, would you not then worry about -- MR. WEITZMAN: No, my concern is not that information will not be complete from the public. My concern is that the public does not know what information needs to be asked for and discussed in public in that we haven't received a characterization from which we can go on. In other words, if I heard from Grace a reasonable explanation, this is why there's asbestos here; this is why it's here. We've looked at the history. We can say with confidence there aren't any huge repositories that might have a ten-foot by ten- foot chunk of the stuff somewhere on this site. If we had that information, which we don't have right now, then we could make informed comments which we want to have in the public record as part of our process. So, I'm saying that we can't make the correct comments until we have what I thought was required. MS. WELLS: If you knew that all those things were true, what -- what would -- where would that lead you in terms of the development? If you had -- I mean, would that change what the future is? MR. WEITZMAN: I'm not sure I understand your question. MS. WELLS: You were saying you wanted more information about why and how it came to be there and so on. And I'm asking, in response to the future use and all that, is that -- I mean, isn't that what you're concerned about, the future use? MR. WEITZMAN: It's kind of -- it's kind of like asking if somebody -- MS. WELLS: Would that change the management plan, is my question. MR. WEITZMAN: If you're going to go on a trip somewhere and somebody says, well, you know, let's just -- let's just -- we have a good idea what we might encounter, let's just get in the car and go, you'd say, no. I want to know where I'm going. I want to know what kind of car I'm driving, what kind of roads -- I want to know if it's snowing out. So, we're being told let's just go for a ride. And I'm saying we have no information to go -- to begin this trip. And that's what I thought site characterization was all about. MR. MIANO: Can I comment on that? MS. WELLS: Jack. MR. MIANO: The -- you need to stay with me. MS. WELLS: Yes, I'll stay with you. I'll stay right close. MR. MIANO: There might be some misunderstanding in the way the MCP works in this development process. The continuance of this development process does not depend on the completion of the MCP Phase II Site Characterization. What's important here is that the soil management techniques that are used during the development process are protective enough. And I understand your concern that it would be great to have a complete characterization of the site. That's something that you're not likely to get because -- MR. WEITZMAN: Not complete. A minimal -- I asked a simple question. Why is there a half million pounds of asbestos? The most obvious, simple question -- MR. MIANO: But that's -- MR. WEITZMAN: -- and that can't be answered. MR. MIANO: No, that cannot be answered. And you're not likely to get an answer to that. Why is the asbestos there? MR. WEITZMAN: Why are we not likely to get that answer? Tell us. MR. MIANO: And if you -- well, let's just assume that nobody knows how it got there and you couldn't get that piece of information. How would the department view that? Would the department do anything differently because you did not know where the asbestos came from? No. We only act on what -- the information that we have. We know that the asbestos is there. And now we're going to proceed to make sure that we minimize or eliminate exposures, at least to the point there are no significant risks. So, whether or not you have that information about site history and how that asbestos came to be there probably wouldn't change any of your management options. MR. WEITZMAN: Do you know at what depths there is asbestos in this site and in what quantities? I don't think that can be ascertained from the information -- MR. MIANO: We have -- we have some information about that. But we're not likely to get a complete picture. It's just the nature of site characterization. You never, ever have a complete picture, because in order to do that, you need to test every inch of soil. And that just can't be done at any site, even if it's a very small site. MR. WEITZMAN: Has DEP ever faced a site with this much asbestos this close to residential neighbors that was planned to be developed in the past? MR. MIANO: There are sites -- "multi- bestos" sites. There are sites with more asbestos, much more asbestos than this. Iron Horse Park had -- had layers of asbestos that were feet thick and -- MR. WEITZMAN: And how close is that to a residential area? MR. MIANO: I believe that's fairly close, but I don't know exactly. MR. WEITZMAN: This directly abuts playing fields and residential areas. Does that, in your -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And an MBTA stop. MR. MIANO: But the point is -- the point here is to focus on the soil management activities. The site characterization has nothing to do with proceeding with development or not. Whether or not they had done any site characterization, they could still proceed with development options by instituting a management plan during the development activities. That's just the way the MCP works. MR. JOSEPH: You're not going to oversee those activities. You're saying that we're the environmental protection agency. We're going to have to do that. I'm sorry -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You need to change the MCP. MR. MIANO: You need to change the regulations, that's right. MR. JOSEPH: None of this -- you know, this is all just garbage. Because what you're saying is: Oh, it's over here. No, no, it's over there. No, it's over here. You know, we're getting a little tired of the run around. MS. WELLS: Wait, Joe. Wait a minute. He didn't -- MR. JOSEPH: Let' me -- wait a second here. MS. WELLS: Be careful assigning him what he said, okay. MR. JOSEPH: We do not want the burden placed upon us to do the environmental protection and to watch W. R. Grace. That's not fair. It's just simply not fair. It's not fair, Jack, for you to sit here and say: Well, I'm sorry. You'll never get that accurate level of site characterization, and you're going to have to be the managers. And you're going to have to use time from your life to look after W. R. Grace as it proceeds through this process. That's not good enough, Jack. I'm sorry. It's not good enough. The Environmental Protection Agency in this state has to do more at this site. It has to. MR. MIANO: I think that what I -- what I stated was just a statement that I -- that is a true statement about the level of site characterization that you get. I've seen hundreds and hundreds over the past ten years at DEP. Hundreds, if not thousands of site characterizations. This is more than you get at most places. And you're making decisions at every one of those sites about closing those sites and having a condition of no significant risk, a condition where you believe you would be willing to go in there and put a residence and have your kids grow up there. This is more information than you get at most. Now, what you have to do from here is decide what you need to do to have a feeling of confidence that being in the neighborhood you're going to have a condition of no significant risk. And that involves not site characterization -- you have a lot of that here. It involves a management plan. And that's why -- I understand Joe's concern about seeing the management plan now at this point in the process. I was happy to see that, because right now, that's the whole ball game, how you manage the soil that you're going to be moving around and working in during this development process. It's the most important thing. MR. WEITZMAN: I would -- I'm going to suggest five questions that I'm wondering how we can answer without further site characterization, just off the top of my head. I've given you one, which is if we were to discover there were huge concentrations -- MS. WELLS: Excuse me just a minute. Will you record the questions he's going to ask, please. MR. WEITZMAN: Wes was talking about the distinction between "concentrations" and -- what's the -- if you find a big area that has it, what do you call that? MR. STIMPSON: A "hot spot." MR. WEITZMAN: A hot spot. My question would be: Wouldn't it affect the remediation and the management of the pollutants if you found hot spots? For example, if there was also found to be some interaction, perhaps the asbestos was getting into water that was going off the site, perhaps there was a determination -- or perhaps the asbestos was -- I'm sorry, I'm just going to give you three real quick ones. Or perhaps it was found there was so much on this site that the whole site should be considered a hazardous waste because of the percentages, which we have not fully ascertained yet. Just three off the top of my head. Wouldn't those affect and be very important later on, especially given that we don't have answers to those questions right now from the information? MR. MIANO: All right. The first one is -- this is a regulatory term, "hot spot." Assuming you found a location where there was a ten-foot by ten- foot by ten-foot area that was just completely packed with nothing but asbestos, we would consider that to be a hot spot. It's a hot spot because we look at that location as something that has more than one hundred times the amount of asbestos in the area around it. What the regulations say about that is in order for you to get a permanent closure for the site, the hot spot must be dealt with. Usually, that means digging it up and taking it away. Asbestos is a special case. Nobody likes to dig up asbestos and take it away. So, you might encapsulate it with cement or some material or solidify it, vitrify it -- that's heat it until it turns into a glassy material. You would have to deal with the hot spot before you could get a permanent closure to that site. That doesn't mean that you couldn't go forward with your development process and institute a management plan. Managing some amount of soil that has almost -- almost the entire thing being asbestos, that management is pretty much the same as managing soil that has only one percent of asbestos. It's the same kind of management. So, would you do something different if you found a huge vault filled with asbestos? That's not clear. MR. WEITZMAN: But how are we going to find out where the vaults are or whether there's a likelihood? Right now, there's no understanding of where the asbestos is anywhere. And because of that, we've heard as part of their -- their monitoring plan, in areas where they haven't found any hits right now, but we really don't know whether there could be asbestos all around those particular test areas -- MR. MIANO: Right. That's why -- MR. WEITZMAN: They're not going to be implementing monitoring procedures based on the information we have right now, which is my point that the information we have right now is inadequate. I don't see how that doesn't have a huge affect on all the next phases that go on, including development and disturbance of soils. I'm still at a loss how you think we're finished right now when we have inadequate assessment. You're point was, well, let's assume the asbestos is everywhere on this site, which is probably your strongest argument. Let's just assume it's everywhere. But at what concentration, and are there hot spots? MR. MIANO: That is the answer. And the assumption is that it's at a concentration that would cause a significant risk and, therefore, a problem. MS. WELLS: Let's hang on a minute. I want Jack to answer whatever he needs to before you go. However, part of this are questions that have been asked and are on the board and are going to get responded to. It doesn't deal with the further characterization and whether you could get that and what it would benefit you, but -- and he has tried to answer that. Is there -- I don't, you know, I think -- I beg your pardon? Mario? MR. FAVORITO: I have one slide I might want to show. MS. WELLS: I beg your pardon? MR. FAVORITO: I have one slide I might want to show. MS. WELLS: To respond to this? MR. FAVORITO: No, but it's related. MS. WELLS: Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think -- I mean, I think -- I worry that a lot of people are really at the end. And so, what more do you need from Jack now? MR. WEITZMAN: I would ask Jack to communicate to other folks in DEP the sense from many people here that we are not ready to exit the second phase here of site characterization. And furthermore, we're not really -- we're not ready to exit the public information process, because we don't have enough information to give reasonable public comments. The public comment period should not start at the end of this meeting. It should start at the point when a reasonable site characterization has been presented to the neighborhood and they can, therefore, comment knowledgeably. MR. MIANO: The MCP requires that you have -- I believe this is right -- public comment at major -- public comment periods and, perhaps, public meetings at major milestones. The end of Phase II, which would be a completion of a site characterization and a risk characterization, would be a major milestone. And at that point, I expect you would get another meeting. It's not clear -- I haven't heard anything to suggest when, exactly, that would occur. That wasn't discussed during this meeting. But again, that is independent of the time frame for the development. I think you keep -- you keep mixing those two together as if complete site characterization, then go forward with development -- MR. WEITZMAN: No, I don't. Because what happens at the end of site characterization, there's no more chance -- correct me if I'm wrong, but at the end of site characterization, there are no more soil tests, for example, that are done. All the soil tests are completed. And if, in fact, as is obvious to anyone who looks at these charts, it took a neighbor to put up a chart to show that the characterization didn't even include spots where asbestos had been found. MR. MIANO: But that was in the report. As I say, don't rely on only information during these meetings because you'll be doing yourself a disservice. MR. STIMPSON: And, Lou, we are not saying that the end of Phase II doesn't mean any more soil data. In fact, it's totally opposite. We're proposing, before the development goes forward, to acquire more soil data. So, the Phase II is only a milestone as it relates to getting sufficient information to evaluate certain things under the MCP. There is a whole lot of additional investigations that are going to be done. As Amy said, probably hundreds of additional samples are going to be collected on this site before the -- MR. WEITZMAN: Well, I believe in Mario's statement of milestones. I do not believe we have -- I would suggest, from the neighborhood, we don't believe this milestone has been passed of site characterization. I understand there are other milestones. When a site characterization that seems reasonable to us is presented to us, I'll say yes, we have characterized this site, and let's -- let's move on. So, my request would simply be to pass on that -- that feeling from the neighborhood. We've not achieved that milestone. MS. WELLS: Okay. MS. CHURCH: Lou, I think maybe -- maybe my comment here, and this is just kind of coming from me, but what we did was we wrote a proposed scope of work for a Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment. Proposed. And we came here tonight soliciting comments from you. More soil samples, additional groundwater samples, whatever you'd like to see. This is what we wanted to hear tonight. I've actually heard very little specific response to the sampling program that we've proposed for the scope of II -- the Phase II scope of work. And you're talking about us getting out of the Comprehensive Site Assessment process when we haven't even begun and produced a finalized plan. This is your opportunity to say specifically what you would like to see done. MR. JOSEPH: We'd like to see more sampling around Building 28 -- MS. CHURCH: And we heard all -- MR. JOSEPH: Additional sampling in -- MS. CHURCH: In Zone 5, uh-huh. MR. JOSEPH: In addition to those two things -- in addition to those two things, there were the other comments that we made with respect to the other sample -- the additional sampling you're going to be doing. And we asked you if you would increase the things that you're looking for. In other words, not just asbestos. There are many things that have been suggested here tonight which I would consider to be very constructive. MS. WELLS: And those have been recorded, both on the tape and on the questions. We need to -- to come to a conclusion. My colleague has an observation which I'd like to offer him an opportunity to offer to all of you. MR. AZCARATE: Okay. My name is Camilo Azcarate, and my work is professional mediator, so my work is process, not substance. And I've been listening today -- besides running with the mike, I've been listening a lot. And I think that you can think about process a lot here because it seems like process has been somehow down in the road and not planned. And you might benefit, both of you, from a well-thought and agreed process of communication which will improve the quality of the communication that -- a process that addresses your interests. The interest of fairness, the interest, you know, of clarity. And I just wanted to observe that. That maybe thinking about the way of communicating to make it less, as someone was saying, less adversarial and more cooperative. It's possible. I mean, it's -- it's -- you're not reinventing the wheel by doing that. And it's something that is available. It is a knowledge that's available and that can be drawn upon. I just wanted to comment that maybe a better process will create a better product. MS. WELLS: Okay. We need -- are you responding to his question? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, yeah. I appreciate your comment very much. And I think it will be helpful to all parties involved. I also have a related process comment that I'm concerned about. I actually think, although there are pointers that everyone can take in how to communicate, I'm really concerned that what has been lost, and Mario, you made some comments recently that I'm concerned about. I think that some very, very constructive things have happened in this meeting, and it's been extremely productive. There's been lots of substance, lots of content that has been raised and responded to. And I'm very concerned that because there were a few moments, which really were the minority, where people got a little bit hot tempered and sometimes, perhaps, it might be called rude or sometimes sarcastic, I'm very concerned that that's getting blown out of proportion and that actually, for the most part, it was an extraordinarily productive and constructive meeting. And I'm concerned that when Lisa requested another meeting and talked about how happy and appreciative the community is that somehow there's a negative undercurrent that's happening now, which isn't actually what the general tone of this meeting was. And I just want to ask the facilitator and mediator to please help us all not have this go into a deteriorated process. MS. WELLS: Thank you very much. I think that we are at a point where a lot of good things have happened. We've busted it to try to record, to be sure we had a lot of people participate. And it felt very, to me, like a lot of good things happened tonight. And I think you have a commitment to continue, which I think is positive. [Inaudible discussion among audience members] MS. WELLS: I beg your pardon? MR. JOSEPH: There's no commitment from Grace to have an additional meeting. MS. WELLS: I think they didn't commit to a date. They committed to continuing the dialogue and that has, in the past -- MR. JOSEPH: We need a specific date that there's an additional meeting after the comment period is over and after that report has been produced and we review it. A commitment for a meeting where we sit down and discuss it and actually see if we can come to some agreement -- mutual agreement as to where the common areas are. MS. WELLS: Uh-huh. And you -- MR. JOSEPH: That's -- MS. WELLS: -- said you would be open to thinking about a process -- slightly different approach if that seemed to be desirable, and we could consult about that. And you said you thought that was a good idea. Some -- a lot of people did. MS. BURKE: Is Grace willing to have another meeting in whatever form? MS. WELLS: I assume that -- MR. FAVORITO: From longtime past, we've always said we're going to communicate and have meetings. We will continue with that mind set. I'm just not, and I don't think any of us are at a point at this point in time, to pick a date. MS. BURKE: All right. Thank you. MS. WELLS: Okay. All right. Okay, thanks. Now, I don't know if you want -- what your situation is, but Mario had one slide -- MR. FAVORITO: I'm afraid to put it up. MS. WELLS: Are you afraid to put it up? Come on, be courageous. Be courageous. MR. FAVORITO: Joe, will you promise not to beat me up? I want a promise and a commitment. Don't beat me up. [Laughter] MR. FAVORITO: I think we said on the agenda that we would talk about our conceptual development plans. I'll just -- at this point in time, I just want to mention two things. One, we are in discussions with a hotel suites developer. So, that's ongoing. We haven't signed a contract yet, but we have -- we are in ongoing discussions. With respect to the rest of the site, we are expecting, at some point, a proposal from Spaulding and Slye. I know you'll love to hear that, but. But we don't have it yet. We have given some preliminary thought to where we might site buildings. And what I want to do is put up a slide that indicates where we're thinking about siting buildings. That's as far as our process and ideas have gone. But we said a long time ago that we wanted to communicate with the neighborhood to give you some idea as to what we're thinking as we think. So, I want to put up a slide that indicates the proposed positioning of buildings, at least conceptually. So, just one minute and I'll put that up. MR. WEITZMAN: Mario, I want to acknowledge your courage to put up a development plan after this meeting. That is -- I truly believe that's -- [Applause] MR. FAVORITO: [Positioning overhead] Thank you for your help. Who has a pointer? If you turn off the lights, maybe -- MS. WELLS: You've got a laser or you've got this one. Whichever one you want. [Lights switched off] MR. FAVORITO: There's nothing really all that new about this because -- MS. WELLS: Will you use the mike, Mario. MR. FAVORITO: There's not a whole lot new about this in the sense that during the process that we went through for the -- a year ago -- for at least a year, we were talking about where to site buildings. I think you'll all recall that under the zoning that we now have on the site, that in the area around the headhouse, right about here [indicating], you could put up a five-story building. A building could go up five stories. So, what we're thinking of at this point is: One, a building here, which is about a hundred thousand square feet, which would be pretty much a mirror image of Alewife One. I mean, it's about the same size. And it would be four stories. This is a hundred and fifty thousand square feet, more or less. And it's in two levels. This level here would be five stories, and this level here would be four stories [indicating]. And again, this would be the proposed site of the suites hotel [indicating]. It's not a full- blown hotel. It's just a suites hotel, with a connection between the two. And this area here [indicating], we sort of wanted to try and get some retail around the site -- oops, this thing is -- oh, there it goes. And so if we have retail, we're thinking of putting it there. It's maybe 6,000 square feet. Now, right now, preliminary discussions with developers and whatever say that might not be big enough. But it's all very preliminary. But the idea we have is to try and site stuff around the headhouse to put, as people were saying, "eyes on the headhouse." As I said, we are in discussions with someone to contract to put up that hotel. There's no commitment here. Although, we are expecting a proposal. Now, this is very preliminary. Before we can do anything, we've got to get an order of conditions from the Conservation Commission. As you know, we've got to talk with the Planning Board about the various requirements of traffic generation, etcetera, etcetera. But I thought that what I would do is at least share with you conceptually what our thinking is so that as we go along, there aren't -- there aren't any surprises. Now -- oh, and I'm sorry -- there will be no supermarket. Back -- [Applause] MR. FAVORITO: Back about a -- it must be a month ago now, I wrote a letter to Vice Mayor Galluccio in response to a question that he had, in which we said we were not going to proceed with a supermarket even though he very kindly introduced that use into the zoning at the last minute. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're being kind now, too. MR. FAVORITO: That's it so far. MS. WELLS: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can we have a copy of that map? Not now. I mean -- MR. FAVORITO: Yeah. The answer is yes. I mean, you know. But I just -- I don't want it to take on a life of its own, okay. MR. CALLAHAN: That's actually -- I'm glad you put that up. My name is Craig Callahan from 16 [inaudible] Terrace. I'm looking at the buildings, and that's kind of the center. MR. FAVORITO: Yeah. MR. CALLAHAN: And I'm looking all above the buildings to the left and that all looks like parking lot, correct? MR. FAVORITO: That's correct. MR. CALLAHAN: So, the way I understand parking lots is you grad it off, and then you've got about 18 -- 18 inches that you excavate under the parking lot for drainage and for construction of it and so forth. MR. FAVORITO: Right. MR. CALLAHAN: So, what we're saying, and Amy initially said -- matter of fact, I think the first thing that she said was this project that's going to come on-line is going to have minimal impact on the soil, right? MR. FAVORITO: Yeah. MR. CALLAHAN: So, I'm looking at the Grace site, and I'm looking at that. And just rough figures, you know, maybe 75, 80 percent of the Grace site is going to be excavated at least to 18 inches, probably to four feet or more, down where you've got the buildings, 18 inches or more, depending on the grade, where you've got the parking lots. And it puts a different skew on what we've been hearing all along, which is we're going to minimally disturb soil on the site. You're going to uproot the whole thing, which is, as we've decided before, completely riddled with major amounts of asbestos. MR. FAVORITO: Okay, Craig, let me see if I can respond to that. Major uprooting the site is a subjective term, okay. Most of this site is already under macadam. MS. WELLS: Does everybody know what "macadam" is? Paving. MR. FAVORITO: Okay. The kind of intrusive -- intrusive activities that are going to go into a site where you're simply going to go to put in parking are, in fact, minimal. Now, this site here [indicating] -- and we have given thought to positioning buildings. This site here [indicating] will most likely be filled -- have some fill brought in so that instead of excavating here, that large building, most of it, will actually be elevated, because it is -- it is in a depression. And so there will be fill here as opposed to going down. We have to deal, I think in this area, Wes, with the -- MR. STIMPSON: The petroleum products. MR. FAVORITO: The petroleum products which were discussed the other day -- well, two weeks ago. And we'll find a way to deal with that, hopefully, successfully. But that will be fill here [indicating]. This area here was the site, as you all know, of a building and a hamburger stand. And no Grace activities were ever carried on there. So, we are trying, as best we can, given the fact that we have just this site to work with, to position structures, and not only to do things as -- as least intrusive as possible, but also to position buildings where we can further manage whatever environmental issues there might be. I mean, we're trying to be sensitive to that because we need to be. Yes? MR. VOLPE: Is the supermarket subject, is that in writing? MR. WARDZEL: Yes. MR. FAVORITO: I've already sent a letter to the Vice Mayor. [Inaudible discussion among audience members] MS. WELLS: He -- yeah, that's what he said. He sent a -- he's put it in writing. MR. FAVORITO: I assume he has put it on the record. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He didn't tell anybody. That's courtesy. MR. FAVORITO: I sent him a letter. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A month ago, you said? MR. FAVORITO: I have a copy of it, yeah. I forget -- I can show you the date of it. MR. HOROWITZ: He's kept it sub rosa. MS. WELLS: Okay, Joe? MR. JOSEPH: Well, I'd just like to say thank you for excluding the supermarket. I really think that that was a ridiculous idea to have included it in the zoning. It's obviously not your fault or your intention. I appreciate that. On behalf of the neighborhood, I would say thank you for putting that out of the picture. [Applause] MS. WELLS: Thank you. Okay. MR. FAVORITO: That's the end of my mini presentation. I want to go home. MS. WELLS: Okay. I think we're at the end. MS. CHURCH: Actually, no. MS. WELLS: Oh, Amy, how could you? MS. CHURCH: I wanted to take this opportunity to say one more thing. We're going to be putting a letter in the mail in a couple of days, probably on Monday that notifies you of the availability of another document in the repositories. And what that document is going to explain is how we're going to roll the asbestos RTN into the other RTN there already exists on the site. And, therefore, both RTNs will be treated under the Tier IC classification instead of trying to separately classify the site and have two different compliance tracks, we're going to roll them all together and treat them as one. So, I just wanted to let you know that that will be coming. MR. JOSEPH: Can I ask why? Can I ask one quick question about that? Very quick. Will you revise the tier classification? MS. CHURCH: We're required to do that, yeah. We have to look at it and see if it affects the number that we had originally. MR. KAMMAN: Can you translate some of that jargon into -- MR. STIMPSON: Joe, Joe, just to, you know, true communication, we don't see it changing the tier classification above a IC. We've gone through it -- MR. JOSEPH: But you will go through the process of it? MR. STIMPSON: Yeah, we will go through the process. Yes. MR. KAMMAN: What does tier classification mean or tier ranking mean? MR. STIMPSON: The MCP process requires on the one-year anniversary of reporting of the presence of the contamination that you determine -- or by the one year, you determine whether the -- whether it's a Tier 2 site, which basically doesn't require a permit to go forward, or a Tier 1 site, or A, B, and C, at various levels and various levels of DEP oversight. And there's a numerical process that you go through to score the contamination and the receptors that might be available and the media they're in and those sorts of things. So, our anniversary is the 7th of July for the tracking number for the asbestos. And based on conversations with the department, we felt that it was in everyone's best interest to roll the two numbers together and carry them forward as one event. MR. KAMMAN: Thank you. MS. ARENA: I have a question. It refers to the -- MS. WELLS: You need -- would you give her the mike, please. MS. ARENA: Laura Arena, 44 Magoun Street. I am wondering why this was brought up now, at this point in time, quarter to midnight, and not earlier since it seems to be relevant to what this meeting was about. MR. STIMPSON: Actually, it's a relatively administrative type of approach. We -- we, in honoring the PIP process, will be putting the document in the repository, and you'll have a 20-day comment period. But there should not be much consideration about it. In fact, I've got a letter in front of me requesting that we do this. And we actually had decided to do this before I got this letter. So, I did -- we did not perceive it to be something that warranted distraction of the other stuff. And we're just letting you know so that you don't find out with a mailing that we had this meeting and then we went forward and did it. MS. ARENA: But isn't it relevant to the site characterization and also the data for the site? MR. STIMPSON: No, it's got nothing to do with that. It's just how the DEP tracks the paperwork associated with the site. MS. WELLS: Okay, all right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just a very quicky. You did have a sign-in sheet and I'm wondering if for further notification you could add or incorporate the names on that sign-in sheet as being notified. MR. FAVORITO: We'll have a master list. MS. WELLS: They do that. Okay. Lot's of people have gone, but on behalf of myself and my colleagues who have tried to serve you tonight, I want to say I think you worked really hard. I know there are a lot of -- there was lots of really deep emotions around all of the issues on all sides. And it's time, I think, to take a little rest, and we'll see you in a few weeks. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Could we have a hand for our two moderators here, please? [Applause] MR. WARDZEL: Thank you very much for coming. [WHEREUPON, the public meeting was concluded at 11:51 p.m.] *************************** C E R T I F I C A T E I, Annmarie Madden, a Certified Verbatim Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify: That the foregoing record is a true and accurate transcription of the public meeting held on Thursday, June 17, 1999, at W. R. Grace & Company, 62 Whittemore Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Jane H. Wells, Deputy Director, Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution, Moderator, in the matter of W. R. Grace & Company Conn. Site at Alewife, to the best of my knowledge, skills, and ability. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand and notarial seal this 29th day of June, 1999. ________________________________ Annmarie Madden, CVR Notary Public My Commission Expires March 16, 2001