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