Volume:I Pages: 81 PUBLIC MEETING W.R. GRACE & CO.-CONN. SITE AT ALEWIFE June 3, 1999, 7:00 P.M. W.R. Grace & Company 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts APPEARANCES PRESENTER Amy Church PANEL John Wardzel Wes Stimpson Dr. Edmund Croutch Paul Macina Mario Favorito Meredith Averito MODERATOR Jane Wells PROCEEDINGS MR. WARDZEL: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our public meeting here at W.R. Grace, Grace Construction Products in Cambridge. I would like to start the meeting with some introductions. First, my name is John Wardzel, I am the Vice-President of engineering and manufacturing support here for Grace Construction Products located in Cambridge. Presenting tonight will be Amy Church. Amy is an Environmental Geologist from Haley & Aldrich. Also from Haley & Aldrich is Wes Stimpson. Dr. Edmund Croutch is also here from Cambridge Environmental. Also from Spaulding and Slye with us tonight is Paul Macina. Paul is over in the corner there. Meredith Averito, VP of Legal for W.R. Grace located in here in Cambridge is at the end. And finally, our Moderator for tonight is Jane Wells. Jane is a Deputy Director, Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution. MS. WELLS: Good evening. I'm glad to see some familiar faces, some new people, and so I want to say just -- okay, I may -- For those of you who were not present at the previous public meeting where the opportunity to serve all of you as facilitator, let me just say again that our office is a small State agency. We are a service agency. We do not have any regulatory or enforcement authority of any kind or any manner. We provide mediators or facilitators for public policy matters that involve any agency of government and a segment of the public, but always public policy issue and we also provide negotiation skills training to State employees at their request. So that's what our office does, and we work both with private sector mediators when a situation is for mediation. We have others sometimes assigned to work in cases and sometimes I work with reflectors, or one or two other staff members also provide their service, but we are glad to have the opportunity to work with all of you and to -- the goal is I'm not a substantive person, I'm a process person. So the goal is to have a meeting that is focused -- that allows everybody an opportunity to participate appropriately and it's fair and efficient, not to the point of not letting people be involved, but to the point of trying to do what the group wants to do on any particular occasion. So, having said all that, is there any question about that particular piece of information that I've just shared with you? Earlier in the evening as people were arriving, they were asking me if I were employed, if I were with W.R. Grace. Some people wondered if I'm with one of the regulatory agencies, so it's important to clarify that. Okay, let's just take a moment if we could to talk about the agenda for the evening. I know that W.R. Grace promulgated a proposed set of subjects to be dealt with tonight, and as you came in the door I think you picked up that agenda for the meeting. I know that there have been some calls that were concerned about not having enough time, or having too many subjects on the agenda, so let me just go through quickly what the proposal is and then invite you to try it out with us and see if we can't get quite a lot of work done tonight. The first presentation that Amy will make is expected only to take about ten or twelve minutes, and then have opportunities for you to ask questions for clarification, or have discussion as is appropriate. I would like to propose that we think about up to twenty minutes. If you need a little more time for that particular piece, we're flexible. The second item will be just slightly longer, probably twelve to fifteen minutes presentation and touching on some of the important pieces of information that will get the discussion started, and obviously a lot more information can be talked about as you ask your questions and think about letting a consultant know what you want to talk about. And so after the presentation on the asbestos report, we will take just a few minutes break, five or ten minutes so you can stretch a little bit, get a Coke and run to the bathroom, because it's a long time to sit if you just have people sitting through two or three presentations, so I would like to propose a short break, then come back and talk about whatever you need to talk about, the asbestos report. And then as a sort of concluding to the evening, the company wanted to at least introduce you to their conceptual plan for development. They told me that is very preliminary, but since you're going to be together tonight in a nice cross section of the community, they would like to at least introduce you to their proposal and talk about what lies ahead as far as the process goes in relationship to the development, so there will be time for you to ask questions about that also. If everybody is all set with that, let's get underway. NEIGHBOR: I have one question: is it in time for this meeting? Mr. WARDZEL: All of the involved people in terms of presentation have said they will stay up until ten o'clock if you want to. If you want to get through sooner, fine, and we'll see where we are at that point. I guess my thought is, folks Know there will be a closure at this meeting. And if there's stuff undone, WE WILL talk about how to deal with -- to have another meeting, so we don't get folks drifting out toward the end. MS. WELLS: That makes a lot of sense. I would entertain a suggestion about a closing time. If you have a suggestion, I told you what they are willing to do. If you want to stop sooner, that's fine. NEIGHBOR: Yes. The poster said the information -- said it's going to go from seven to nine. I know myself and a lot of other people I know here, five o'clock in the morning comes pretty early. MS. WELLS: If that's what your expectation was, I'm sure that we'll work this out as we get to get as much as we can, and at nine o'clock, we will see where the majority of people are and if it's five or ten minutes more, that's one thing. It will probably be -- okay. Has everybody agreed that that's what we should target? That sounds great, that's terrific. So let's not waste any more time by talking, let's get to Amy Church. MS. CHURCH: Okay. The way we've divided up the agenda it has a specific purpose. There are two tracking numbers that have been assigned to this site by the Department of Environmental Protection. One deals with petroleum contamination and one deals with asbestos present on the site. So what I'm going to do is present two reports that deal with the first RTN, Release Tracking Number for petroleum. And one report is a program -- is on a program that we did in January of this year, using a methodology called extractable and volatile petroleum hydrocarbons. We did the program on soils at the site, and we came to some conclusions as a result of that field program. Those conclusions then tie into a remedial action plan, a phase III of the action plan that was written for that Release Tracking Number. So those two reports are going to be presented first, and then we will stop and take questions and comments on those two reports. So we'll just leave it at that without getting into too much detail. Before I get into the specifics of the report, I wanted to let you know what your resources are when you leave here, as far as information is concerned. All the reports that are going to be presented tonight, and there's going to be four in total, on two different subjects, are available at public information repositories. There are two established in Cambridge at the libraries, the North Library and the Main Cambridge Library, and there's one at the Department of Environmental Protection in Woburn. There's one at the City Planning Office at 57 Inman Street and then there's one here at W.R. Grace. And additional copies of these reports, I believe are available here tonight if you want to take some home with you, although they are kind of limited in number. My name is Amy Church as Jane said, and I work for Haley & Aldrich, and I put my phone number on there and I want you to feel free to call me during working hours, from nine to five, although sometimes I'm there earlier. If you have any questions and feel that you left here or that you were unable to ask or you were unclear on, I definitely want you to feel free to call me and ask me questions. And all of the reports that are going to be presented tonight are subject to a twenty-day comment period that's going to start tomorrow, June 4, and extend until the end of the day on June 24. And during that comment period, I strongly suggest that you put any comments and questions that you have in writing, because we will produce a formal response to those in writing and I think you might feel at that point confident that the concerns that you have have been addressed. NEIGHBOR: Amy, who do those comments go to? MS. CHURCH: They go to me. And, you know, I didn't make an overhead of my address, but I have my business card and you can call me at that phone number and get my address, and I will even give you my e-mail address if you want to send it through e-mail. NEIGHBOR: Clarification. You may have said the 24th and I think it says 23rd on the overhead. MS. CHURCH: Okay, thank you. You're right. It's the end of the day June 23rd. That will be the twenty calendar day comment period. NEIGHBOR: Would you introduce people on the panel? MS. CHURCH: Sure. To the left end of the table is John Wardzel, and he is Vice-President of Engineering & Manufacturing of construction products. And next to him is Dr. Edmund Croutch, and he is from Cambridge Environmental in Cambridge and he deals with our risk assessment issues on the site. Next to him is Mr. Wesley Stimpson, he works at Haley & Aldrich with me. He is the Senior Vice President there and the licensed site professional for this site. And next to him is Mario Favorito, and he is the Vice President of legal matters for this office here, for W.R. Grace. NEIGHBOR: Amy, one quick suggestion. It's a little bit hard to hear back here. It's not you at all. From the front. When people have comments and questions, if you could speak louder. It's a little bit hard to hear in the back. MS. CHURCH: Okay. MS. WELLS: Amy, when we get to the question and answer session, I have a mike which I'll move around with, and I should mention that they, in addition to notes that will be taken, they are also recording tonight, so everybody's questions will be recorded and that way they will be able to respond to them and reflect them in the record verbatim. MS. CHURCH: Okay. So as I said, the first report I'm going to present tonight is a report that we did on a soil sampling program at the site in January of this year. The abbreviated name of it is the EPHVPH Program. And what that stands for is the extractable and volatile petroleum hydrocarbon program, and that refers to the method that we used to analyze the soil for petroleum content. And this program that we did in 1999 was supplemental to programs that we have done previously in 1988 and 1995. In 1988, we did a program testing soil for petroleum content using the methodology that was then accepted by the DEP, and it was called oil and grease. And we did a total of 83 soil samples and analyzed them, and on this plan everywhere where you see a triangle, those show the locations of the soil samples that we took in 1988. And then in 1995, the DEP promulgated a new methodology to assess petroleum content in soil and that was called total petroleum hydrocarbon, so we went back and reassessed areas on the site that had had high levels from the '88 program and analyzed the soil samples using the new methodology. And it may be kind of hard for you to see, but all the open circles with the plus signs, those are the borings that we did for the 1995 program. We completed 66 borings and we analyzed 165 soil samples. And out of that program, there were four locations that exceeded the standard that is applicable to the site, it's called the upper concentration limit. And those locations are right here. There was two samples here -- two borings here, one boring here, over there, and one right there. Those four areas were going to require remediation under the MCP because the concentrations of petroleum in the soil exceeded the upper concentration limits for petroleum at the time. And then in 1999, the DEP promulgated another method, called the EPHVPH method which I just referred to. So we went back in to those four areas where we had exceeded before and we took soil samples, completed borings in the exact same locations where we had the exceedences and then all around them to further delineate the area. And in addition, we also looked again at the historic use of the site and we added some borings because of that. And those borings are all the borings that are kind of interspersed, the circles that are semi filled in. So we put a boring here, here, here, here and here to re- evaluate the areas where the UCL, the upper concentration limit exceedences were. So the field program for that EPHVPH program included 25 borings and the analysis of 32 samples using that methodology and the result was that we got one sample back that had an extractable petroleum hydrocarbon level of 16,000 parts per million, and that exceeds the DEP upper concentration limit standard of 10,000 parts per million. So there were no other upper concentration limit exceedences, and a result of that program -- in fact, there's one area, and this is the boring, it's B983 here in green that had the sample with the exceedence in it, that there is an area around that boring that's going to require remediation later on. And that leads us into the second report that I'm going to present tonight, which is the Phase III Remedial Action Plan. And what the Remedial Action Plan is, is our proposed plan to deal with that one layer -- excuse me, that one area where we had the exceedence of the upper concentration limit. Now, the gaol of the Remedial Action Plan is to identify, evaluate, and then select the most appropriate remedial action for the site, based on the fact that we had that upper concentration limit exceedence. We have to consider the contaminant, which is extractable petroleum hydrocarbon and the medium in which is occurs, which in this case is soil. For a screening process, we selected the most appropriate remedial alternative, and we got it down to four different alternatives, one being excavation of off- site landfill disposal. Another being excavation and off- site soil desorption, excavation and on-site asphalt batching and reuse of the soil, and then an engineered barrier that would prevent exposure to the soil at all, and subjected it to a criteria that was established by the DEP and we selected number 2, excavation and off-site thermal desorption to clean up this area that is shown where the green hatch is that surrounds that boring where we had the exceedence. NEIGHBOR: Can you explain what the word "desorption" means? MS. CHURCH: Yes, I'm going to get to that next. The procedure where we do off-site -- where we do thermal desorption and when we excavate and take if off site, is to take off the area that is determined to be contaminated with petroleum, take it off site to a permanent facility where they super heat it and vaporize the contaminants and contain them. That's what thermal desorption is. While the program is going on in the site, on site there will be an excavations happening. There will be a program to control odors that we incur and any airborne particulates that may be released or could be released as a result of doing excavation. And before we refill the area that we've excavated and the soil has been taken off site, before we refill that with clean fill, we do confirmatory sampling to make sure that we've gotten everything out that we need to get out. Now, with the successful completion of ---- NEIGHBOR: You said there will be some sort of a program in place to control odors? MS. CHURCH: Yes. NEIGHBOR: If I recall correctly, the last time remediation was done on this site, the odor problem was one of the most significant factors. In fact, as I understand it, it drove the neighbors nuts. So could you please explain ---- MS. CHURCH: Excuse me? NEIGHBOR: ---- what the odor control measures would be? MS. CHURCH: Well, as a matter of fact, that program hasn't been written yet, but we have had experience in using an odor suppressant at another site that we worked on where the odors were pretty bad from a different contaminant, but there were reports from the community that there were complaints about the odor. So we went back in and used this odor suppressant, which is citrus based and breaks down naturally in the soil, and it worked very effectively. We never got another complaint after that. So the program that we write will probably be very much like that, using that type of agent. MS. WELLS: Amy, let me just interrupt for a second. She's almost through. If you will hold your questions on this particular presentation, we're going to give you time. NEIGHBOR: Sometimes it is very difficult to ask a question that is unrelated to anything that ---- MS. WELLS: Okay. We'll be reasonable, but within reason. Let's hold questions, because she is very near completion. NEIGHBOR: I just want to say that some of the things being said need an explanation, and to ask a question fifteen minutes after the explanation should have been given, really doesn't make sense. MS. WELLS: I understand. MS. CHURCH: So with the successful completion of the program, the soil with the UCL exceedence, or the upper concentration limit exceedence, will have been removed from the site, a condition of no significant risk will exist, and the activity and use limitation or deed restriction on the site, are a permanent solution under the definition of the MCP, the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, will have been achieved. Now, David? NEIGHBOR: I was going to ask what was the contaminant at the other site where the odor suppressant was so successful? MS. CHURCH: It was number two fuel, number two fuel oil. MR. STIMPSON: It was both a very degraded gasoline, and I believe it was either TC or PC solvent. MS. CHURCH: I'm just going to sit down, we're all going to answer your questions. NEIGHBOR: If I can go back to that original question I asked, odor control. The odor control program that you talked about, apparently there is a lack of specificity at this time, you seem to have described some sort of a perfume agent of some sort. I'm not so sure that I would want a perfuming agent, because if there were some sort of an emission where an odor may be some measure of warning, I would think I would want to know that. I mean, I do really like to see as little or no disturbance to the soils as is possible, but I guess in some situations the nature and the contaminants makes you have to do something. But I am a little bit concerned about it, particularly since one of the primary contaminants on this site is naphthalene. As I understand it, naphthalene has been upgraded to a carcinogen and from the studies that I've read, the primary rule of exposure we have to worry about most so far is the inhalation. So I'm not sure that I'm particularly pleased with the idea of using perfume agents at all, but I would like to know if you would be willing to do something a little bit more sophisticated with respect to this sort of thing. It's not just a nuisance. There are some risks involved as well. MS. CHURCH: Wes, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the agent that we used at the other site actually broke down the contaminants so that it was -- is this true, Wes -- so that it was no longer -- I know this is going to be hard. MR. STIMPSON: I know about the sites he is talking about. It's not a masking agent. It basically forms a slight crust on the soil to prevent the vaporization on the soil as it's exposed, so it's not a big Airwick, it's a mechanism that encapsulates the material as it's being exposed, it's sprayed on directly. And there is no additional odor applied. NEIGHBOR: Could you provide documentation explaining that process in detail, along with other documents, because I would like to see that. MR. STIMPSON: Oh, sure. Joe, this is a Phase III level of investigation that determines the response action. There will be another complete submittal that will be necessary before we actually undertake the work. NEIGHBOR: But I would like to see the work so that we can comment on it in the twenty-day period which starts when ---- MR. STIMPSON: You will get another comment period for the document that actually does the removal. NEIGHBOR: But I would like to comment on it in advance. MR. STIMPSON: But we don't know exactly what we are going to use yet. NEIGHBOR: Okay. Well, when you do know, could that be provided to us so that we can comment in some sort of a significant and meaningful period of time? MR. STIMPSON: Yes. NEIGHBOR: Thank you. NEIGHBOR: With all due respect, it's been three years we've been dealing with Haley & Aldrich and W.R. Grace, so -- because you say the community is happy with the results, I'm skeptical, maybe a natural skeptic. So I would like to know what that community -- where that community is and how we can get in touch with them to ascertain whether they were, in fact, happy with the remediation and that there was no odor or whatever. So could you provide us with the name of the community and maybe a contact person or ---- MS. WELLS: Well, let me just clarify. Are you asking this question in reference to Amy's suggestion that at the conclusion of your mediation is it expected that the community would be happy? That's the future. NEIGHBOR: No. I'm saying ---- MS. CHURCH: I think I know what you are saying. You are saying you would like to know where the community was where we used that particular agent. MR. STIMPSON: We can give you the name of the DEP representative who was on the site, both before and after the use of it and I think he will satisfy your concerns. MS. HOLMAN: Hi, my name is Aaron Holman. Amy, I'm wondering if you could put up your last slide, the one with which you concluded -- the question I have is, what are your results that you specify is a condition of no significant risk. I'm wondering if you can clarify what you mean, since there's clearly a judgment call there. MS. CHURCH: Sure. Aaron, the risk assessments that have been done on site state that there is no -- there is a condition of no significant risk currently to public health. The upper concentration limits are a measure of risk to public welfare. So when we say that there is going to be a condition of no significant risk, we say -- I mean compounded with the results that we already have that there is no risk to public health, there is going to be when we finish the program, no risk to public welfare. And those measures and the term "no significant risk" comes from the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. So the process that we go through to evaluate risk is a set process that is determined by the Department of Environmental Protection. NEIGHBOR: Why are there no tests performed on the portions of the Grace property above the dotted line. MS. CHURCH: Let me just clarify that. I know what you are talking about. Do you mean right here, that dotted line? NEIGHBOR: The area where it says "General area subject to phase, phase evaluation". There's no tests up there. MS. CHURCH: Well, the rest of this portion of the property is pavement and there's buildings, so there was -- even though we have done, we did some borings there in 1988 around the areas where there were underground storage tanks and above ground storage tanks, we found that there was no significant petroleum contamination there, so we didn't continue testing there later. And there is a section right up here that was formally used as storage area for a lumber company. So there was no reason to believe that there was any petroleum there, although there are scattered samples and I believe there are even more that don't show on the plan. This area that's boxed in blue, was defined based on the data sent and wasn't limited to begin with, you know, like we already have the data set so we only did the Phase III evaluation to cover the remediate. That was the area that we addressed because of the data sent. Does that answer your question? NEIGHBOR: It is an answer to the question, but a not very satisfactory answer. It seemed to be beneficial to you to prove that there's nothing there. MS. CHURCH: We've already done that by taking the samples of those areas. NEIGHBOR: Why don't you have symbols there? MS. CHURCH: When you put together a sampling program, according to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, you would take into consideration the historic use of the site, and that's generally where you focus your site. And since that area had only been used for lumbering use, we did not feel that it needed to be extensively sampled for petroleum, but it was sampled in 1988. NEIGHBOR: Okay. So you know the history and you know that at all times it was a lumber site and therefore you don't need to test it? MS. CHURCH: Well, we believe there was no reason to test it, and the results that we got on the samples confirmed that belief. NEIGHBOR: My concern goes to the next part of this, is that when you are digging up all the soil, there could be asbestos in the ground in those locations and that could be a problem. And in looking through the report, you mention that approximately 16 soil samples were taken regarding asbestos. I'm concerned about the use, that's approximately -- and you mentioned only three soil samples were taken for asbestos. So now I'm a little concerned about some of the -- how asbestos fits in to this process as far as a very large area there was asbestos found within, I'm guessing, 50 feet of that site. It's hard to tell, because the amounts don't overlay very well and there is no indication of where that specifically is in regards to your test boring locations. MS. CHURCH: Okay. During the time -- the area that we are going to excavate is about 250 cubic yards, and during the time that we're doing the work, although I haven't presented it yet, it will be presented in just a minute, we'll have in place an airborne particulate management -- an airborne assessment management and monitoring plan. And briefly, because I'm going to present it in a minute, that will include management techniques to suppress dust or airborne particulate generation, monitoring techniques to insure the fact that we are at the appropriate management level, and built in action levels that if we find that increased management techniques are necessary, we will upgrade based on the monitoring that we do during the time of the excavation. And I want to clarify, when I was talking to you earlier, I said that boring B983, which is the one in green where we had the upper concentration limit for petroleum for EPH exceedence, there were three samples within that boring that were tested for asbestos, but I believe that in the report, because you are talking about the Phase III Remedial Action Plan, the writers took into consideration samples that had been taken as part of the evaluation for asbestos and soil. So that's where the number 16 came from. NEIGHBOR: The area to be excavated is more than just that, looking for a boring covers ---- MS. CHURCH: Right. And that's what I mean, within that 250 yard hatched square. NEIGHBOR: So will there be additional testing in that area for asbestos before you start digging? MS. CHURCH: Well, to be quite honest, I don't remember the results of all the asbestos samples in that area off the top of my head, but according to the plan that I will present in a minute, if there are trace or percent levels of asbestos detected by either Grace, the split samples -- and this is jumping ahead -- that the Alewife Study Group collected or the split samples that the City of Cambridge have collected, if any of the data sets indicate that there are trace or percent levels, we will do further characterization before we do the excavation work. Neighbor: The tests you've conducted that we'll get to are not -- you can't draw significant conclusions from them because the way the tests were carried out and the attempt of the test and the way the asbestos was distributed through the site, you cannot make a strong argument that you will not find other concentrate areas between the sample locations. Apparently you are relying on the tests which you specifically say the final asbestos sampling was presented in November, that this test was not defined in specific areas of concentration. It was an initial characterization, and you came to pretty strong conclusions from the initial characterizations that will be specifically ---- MS. CHURCH: Well actually, that's what I just said. We will be doing a better characterization of the area based on the data set that we have. MS. WELLS: Can you hold additional questions on asbestos until she gets into that in more detail, and you are welcome to go make the relationship between this and that discussion, you won't be limited to it. So let's see if we can move along on other questions on this report and be able to get to asbestos soon. NEIGHBOR: One of the monitors we have been having in not only this forUm but others regarding this site is to try to do the best we can to avoid an excavation. I am surprised that in your list of alternatives, in-situ bioremediation never occurred, did you look at in-situ bio? It seems like to get from 16,000 to 10,0000 is less than a 40 percent drop. That's not a lot to ask of the bogs. Why did you eliminate that option? MS. STIMPSON: I think that we believed that that was not necessarily a proven fact, that you can remediate percent levels of petroleum products with in- situ bioremediation and given the volume and given the relatively expedient way of excavating, and we felt we were able to control the issues of concern, such as odors and asbestos liberation that we chose an excavation procedure. NEIGHBOR: Can you explain to us what that process is for those of us who are not technically savvy? MR. STIMPSON: In-situ bio? NEIGHBOR: Please. MR. STIMPSON: It basically is a technology where you would enhance the natural bacteria that are in the ground, either by the addition of oxygen or by the addition of nutrient and oxygen to accelerate the natural rate of degradation that is ongoing at the present time. And they actually break down the petroleum hydrocarbons into their lesser fractions. NEIGHBOR: Thank you. NEIGHBOR: First of all, thanks for the coffee and air conditioning. Secondly, I'm concerned, as I always am, with the testing and what goes on and I guess here from the neighbor's prospective, is we are not so interested in UCLs and what standards are set by the government and what goes into reports. We are basically concerned about getting exposed to chemicals, just pure and simple, and we are concerned that we know what's on the site and that we know it's being taken care of. And if we had felt that, honestly I wouldn't even be here tonight. I would have felt like it's in good hands and so forth. But you have to understand that from our prospective, we felt that the site has not been fully characterized, as evidenced by obviously, the whole asbestos story, which I know is coming up. But I'm setting the scene that for us we come here looking for assurance that this particular test is going to do what it's going to do. And from the past history, you understand, we need more assurance than has been given to us, because we were, in fact, there was no knowledge of asbestos until neighbors started really talking about it and that asbestos has come and so forth. Acknowledgement. I'm further concerned that it seems -- I know I'm getting to asbestos -- but I know asbestos was found in parts of the site which the characterization and the past history would never predict. So I'm concerned that that the asbestos, we don't seem to have a good characterization of the site. So I guess my skepticism goes back to this petroleum, for example, and I would really like to ask the question like the gentleman over there was asking, why hasn't the whole site been fully tested, given the history which seems to point to the fact we don't really know, we can't accurately characterize what is going on. And I would further talk about what might be talked about, the concern that when you start digging for petroleum, the soil doesn't really understand that you are just digging for petroleum. The soil is going to understand that it's being dug up and later chemicals there are liable perhaps to get in the air and, you know, be exposed to folks in the neighborhood area who -- that is really all we are concerned about. We are not concerned that you guys followed standards set by the State and so forth. So my question would be: How do you know that in that area -- for example, I remember reading the studies originally done by you guys in the early eighties, and I know there were certain test sites that were dug. This is in the public record, I've looked them up. It's for all to see. They dug test pit and they actually, the people who were digging them were overcome by vapors and they closed the pits back up. I didn't just make that up, that's happened. There was another one I know they dug up, they found a barrel. They just never tested it, they just closed it back over. Clearly there are things in and around that site that no one seems to have an understanding of. What makes you think in that area there are not various volatile chemicals which are not being tested for, which are not being monitored, for example asbestos or naphthalene. That's my question. MR. STIMPSON: I truly believe that this site has more characterization work done on it than almost -- I can't think of another site that has had more characterization work done on it, as far as attempting to get a handle on what might exist or what might be encountered when we do any type of excavation, or any type of intrusive activities. I hope that the neighborhood feels confident that there is no current risk with these contaminants buried. And I believe that the approach we are taking, which is going to be a pro-active approach to manage anything that can be or might be encountered during any type of removal action, is a much more sensible one than trying to go out there and do a bunch of additional testing and document the fact that we have similar levels of contamination, that would have to be managed in the same way anyways. So, I believe that it's been characterized sufficiently enough to put in place a bunch of contingency plans. You are going to have a plan that talks about how you would manage materials that you didn't expect. You're going to have a plan that talks about how you manage the odors, and you're going to have a plan that talks about how you manage the possible generation of asbestos and the particulates that might be emitted during the excavation process. It's going to be a pro-active plan, regardless of what the concentrations are. There's going to be pro-active plans in place, and they will be monitored to demonstrate they're working and if they aren't working for some reason, there is a contingency to upgrade them. I think we are doing everything that we can reasonably do to address one, the obligation that the State is placing on Grace to bring the site into compliance with the MCP and the neighborhood's concerns. MS. WELLS: Let me just check to be sure. If I understood you earlier, in the interest of the people who are here, you will be delivering a detailed plan before you begin this work; is that correct? MR. STIMPSON: Yes. This whole process of this removal action has another submittal that is going to have to be made to the department. It will have a comment period and a process just like we are going through right now. So if you feel that what we put in place when we develop it isn't appropriate, we'll have an opportunity to review it and discuss it. MS. WELLS: Okay. Let's see if we can just have two or three more questions on this with the understanding that we'll come back to this plan in a little while, but concern to the asbestos report. NEIGHBOR: I would like clarification on two aspects of the last item on that slide about the activity and use limitation. First, could you briefly describe what the activity and use limitation would be, and where it would be applied to. And the second clarification would be, why is the activity and use limitation needed, if there is no significant risk at the site. MS. CHURCH: The activity and use limitation will manage how future excavations are done on the site. And the airborne particulate management and monitoring plan, the soil management plan and odor management plan, all those things that Wes was just referring to, will all be tied into the activity and use limitation. The activity and use limitation is attached to the deed, so that anyone who ever gains ownership or, you know, has some control over the site, will know exactly what can and can't be done on the site as far as, with regards to the contaminants that have been identified. NEIGHBOR: The solution? MS. CHURCH: The permanent solution is a term set forth by the Massachusetts Contingency Plan that means that you don't have to go back and revisit it, revisit the issue anymore, once you achieve a permanent solution. That's closure for that release tracking number. NEIGHBOR: To make sure I understand what you just said, you are saying that there will be no significant risks at the site if, or since, the activity and use limitation would be done; is that correct? It's not -- without that use limitation there could be significant risk? MS. CHURCH: No. NEIGHBOR: All right. I don't think I understand the term "no significant risk". MR. FAVORITO: The activity and use limitation yes is the thing that helps limit risks. It's possible that certain activities would result in riskS to people using the site, if they did those activities on the site. So for example, you wouldn't go and dig big holes in the site and put playgrounds on there mixing up the soil. That would not be a safe activity. But with the activity and use limitations in place, it's safe. NEIGHBOR: Thank you. I understand now. MS. WELLS: Okay. Just a couple more people, I think, and then let's go to the asbestos plan. NEIGHBOR: Yes, two points of clarification and then two questions. This goes back to one of the questions that was asked about testing above that line where it says, "General area subject to Phase III evaluation". And then below the line where it says -- at the bottom of that slide, "Infield Pond and Parkway Pond". The characterization that there was only lumber storage there in the area where it says, "General Area subject to Phase III Evaluation" is incorrect. That area, which doesn't show on that slide, was a railroad site, and as anyone that has anything to do with environmental assessment or site contamination, are notorious sites for site contamination. That area was also used for above ground storage of tanks and drums by use by the Grace Companies and other buildings on site. And also, to the top of that slide which isn't shown, there were stored in ground and under ground -- a large, I think it's a 10,000 gallon Tolouene tank, which is still in the ground. So I think the characterization that only -- not I think, the characterization that only lumber was stored there is, at a minimum, inaccurate. Below the line at the bottom of the slide where it says, "Infield Pond and Parkway Pond" in a recent assessment, to be truthful a cursory assessment of Parkway Pond by the City and the Russell Field assessment, the pond was found to be contaminated that immediately abuts the Grace property. So it begs the question, what is causing that contamination -- what is likely to cause continued problems in that area. Currently, the MDC just fenced it off and there really hasn't been any effort to deal with that problem. But as you are aware, and I'm sure Wes is aware, that that was uncovered in the Russell Field assessment. So I just wanted those points of clarification. The questions I have are, when you refer to, well Ms. Church, further characterization, did that mean further data sampling, actual data sampling, or just looking at data? MS. CHURCH: Further completion of boring, collection of samples and analysis. NEIGHBOR: The other question I had specifically, when you refer to petroleum products, as your knowledge, we all know the most significant contaminant on this site is naphthalene and the associated polysific aromatic hydrocarbons, and I don't hear anything in the remediation plan that deals with any of that, and I wonder if you might comment on that. MR. STIMPSON: Great, because that basically leads into what I was going to respond to, your comments. This sampling program is only for petroleum. In other words, there's a whole bunch of additional expiration and data sets that have been obtained to address the other contaminants. However, the risk characterizations that have been done, indicate that there is no need to do any response actions at the site for the level of contamination that has been detected. The only thing that is triggering a need to look at response actions in accordance with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, is the petroleum product upper concentration limit exceedence, and that's what we're presenting here tonight. So there are additional information, for other contaminants, that are available on the site. We are just focusing on what's required by the Massachusetts Contingency Plan tonight for us to move forward with the process. NEIGHBOR: So there is no remedial action plan for those other site contaminants? MR. STIMPSON: Correct. The development of the site basically will serve as the primary mediation of the site. The area that you talk about as being what Amy classified as lumber storage and she didn't go into all the history of it. I think her intent was to indicate that there is no history of underground storage tanks, again associated with petroleum products. The tank that you are referring to was actually in between the buildings themselves, and that's been closed up and there are expirations done adjacent to that you will find in the expiration program. MR. WELLS: Okay. Are we getting close? NEIGHBOR: I just wanted to make one observation if I could. As you pointed out, Wes, it really is impressive the amount of testing that's been done on the site, but the amount of testing that you do does not necessarily arrive in an adequate or a substantial characterization of the site. Sometimes it's not what you do -- what you are looking at in the documentation and the sampling, it's what you don't see that's more important. One of the things that doesn't seem to be present in your protocol, and I've read almost all of your documentation, are substantial testing for tentatively identified compounds. And that may not have been a requirement, but that doesn't mean that you should not have done it. You did not put the soil, apparently, under a microscope, even randomly, and look at fiber. Because there is all kinds of fiber that should have been in your initial report that turned up after the fifteen years of initial sampling. So it's not a good idea to boast about the amount of sampling that you've done. What is important here is that the characterization of the site be substantial and be comprehensive, and that nothing, especially obvious things, like examining fiber, be left out. To my way of thinking, that's boilerplate. MS. WELLS: Okay. There's several more hands. It's been called to my attention that it's important for you to identify yourselves, so some of you who have been speaking may speak again before the night's over. But if you would identify yourself so that it can be included in the report, that would be important. MS. MIETH: My name is Carolyn Mieth. I live at 15 Birkford Street in North Cambridge. As initially explained, you have the '88 standard, you did the test in '95, you did the test again in '99, I expected we would end up, because you started with three -- four sites identified and you get to '99, there is only one site for remediation. Does that mean the standards were lowered from '88 to '95 to '99 or do we have to remediate the last site? MR. STIMPSON: That's actually a very good question. What's happened with the evolution of a petroleum testing standard was initially the test results would include any type of organic material that would be extracted out by the testing process, so that oil and grease testing process actually included a lot of contamination, apparent contamination, that's in natural organic soils, the peats and the silts and those sorts of things that exist at the site. The department recognized that and moved to a more petroleum specific test, which is was the TPH testing. And then when the risk based program was put in place, they realized the TPH testing wasn't giving them the definition necessary to evaluate the human health and the environmental risks associated with petroleum, and put in place the EPH and VPH programs. So while the number of sites are going down, it is much more focused on the potential risks associated with the petroleum in the environment. NEIGHBOR: I work next door. First, let me just say I think it's darkly humorous that you label those two toxic sludge pools at the bottom of the slides "ponds". But anyway, since these risk assessments all relate back to the government's definition of what constitutes no significant risk, I'm wondering if you can give us some sense of the quality of those definitions and what, you know, how they relate to actual, you know, actually whether it is safe for people to live and work right on top of these sites. And similarly, can you give us some sense of, you know, how can we have confidence that these testing standards, which have changed so much in the past, even just the past few years, actually are able to give us -- even if it's the, you know, most thoroughly explored site in the country, that the current state of the art can really give us a good sense of -- that the site has been fully explored and we understand what's going on. MR. FAVORITO: The no significant risk standards are exceedingly safe. I don't know how else to put it. NEIGHBOR: Is there some consensus ---- MR. FAVORITO: Yes, they are exceedingly safe. I mean, that would be the consensus. NEIGHBOR: For children or adults? MR. FAVORITO: Both. The no significant risk standard, the one intent lifetime risk basically is from the whole site, everything on it is the risk standard, and then the additional public welfare, public health standards, which are for any other sort of program are impossible to achieve. For public health programs, for example, are impossible to achieve such low levels. So those standards are exceedingly low. Changing methodologies you were saying. The changing methodology on the petroleum, oil and grease to TPH to EPHVPH, is focusing more and more on the non unnatural components of the soil. This is a site which has got a lot of natural organic materials on it. This was the great swamp. So for this site, it's focusing more and more on the contamination, as opposed to what was here originally. For other materials, the effect of advances in testing is simply to lower the detection limits. They have gotten incredibly better in the last ten years even, so we can see them much, much more easily. Anything else? What was the next -- does that cover everything? MS. WELLS: I will suggest that we take two more questions and then go to the asbestos, and then come back to this if we need to. We'll start with you. NEIGHBOR: A couple of points. My name is (inaudible) I live at 32 Coy Street. Quick point. You mention that this is maybe the most characterized site for contaminants, and I just for the record I want to say that one of the major reasons for that is because many of the folks in this room and a lot of others are continually complaining and doing research, making sure that this site is tested. So it's through the actions of the community, it's through the action of the community that has caused it to be so characterized. The question I have relates to something Mr. Stimpson said earlier about excavation of the area with -- I don't know the lingo -- that has too much petroleum, and that I think what you said, you will take pro-active steps to insure that there won't be risk when excavation is done, and I understand that this past March another underground tank was removed from this site. And I'm wondering what the pro-active steps were taken at that time to insure that there wouldn't be risk for the community. And you also mentioned that you wouldn't even develop a plan of excavating this particular site without the community giving input as to what that plan was. And I'm wondering what steps you took to inform the community of the plan relating to removing the underground tank, if that's true. MR. STIMPSON: I'll address that. The underground storage tank that was removed was a petroleum storage tank, it was not a Tolouene storage tank. It actually was no longer necessary for the storage of petroleum products. We did, as part of the asbestos sampling program, we characterized all around the area to be excavated the possible presence of asbestos, and we demonstrated to our satisfaction that the material that we were going to be dealing with to remove the tank was all backfill material that was placed there when the tank was installed. So we basically excavated a big hole in off- site sand and gravel that had been placed for the tank. The tank was not a very old tank, and the tank, when we got it out of the ground, was in excellent condition. So we basically moved forward and did a program that we felt was very responsive for a tank removal. NEIGHBOR: And that's not an area where it's possible there was asbestos? MR. STIMPSON: We pre-characterized the area before we did the removal. NEIGHBOR: The same way you characterized this -- you tested -- you characterized it the same methodology? MR. STIMPSON: Yeah. We did a systematic location all around it. If you look at the sampling program, you'll see this one area that has a ring of asbestos sample points all around the test. Because it was naturally brought in backfill material as opposed to miscellaneous fill material and the results of the asbestos testing program, we felt confident that we could manage that. NEIGHBOR: It says asbestos was detected at trace level in one sample. MR. STIMPSON: In one sample, right. NEIGHBOR: There was asbestos detected in that area, and you are just saying that -- you didn't mention that at all in your statement there. MR. STIMPSON: It was in natural soils. MS. PATIL: I have this question. My child was playing around in that area and nobody let us know that there was asbestos and you were digging up that tank. Why is that? And I want answers from the DPW also. There was no information to any of us. Is Grace to do a responsible job. I don't think so, I don't trust you, I don't believe you. I just want to know how this child is to be contained to the house without any information from you. MR. STIMPSON: Okay. If you notice the location of the tank removal, it was inside the Grace facility. It is surrounded by structures. If your child was in that area, he shouldn't have been. NEIGHBOR: No. I think we need to know when you do things like that, especially when you have detected asbestos in that area. We live around this area. MR. STIMPSON: Okay. MS. WELLS: I'm here and I know this is not an ideal situation where I'm wandering around here because you can't see me, a person here, the person in the green T-shirt here and let's do try to go to asbestos and you can combine your question as much as you feel is appropriate, but let's go to this question. NEIGHBOR: Hi. My name is Anne Marie, I live at 110 (inaudible) street. And my understanding of the scientific and medical literature is that they do not know the levelS of both petroleum and asbestos that will cause cancer. In fact, what is recommended is no exposure. So how do you stand with this no significant risk issue if, really, anyone will tell you in public health which is my profession, that any exposure is hazardous to your health? MR. FAVORITO: It's not correct that we don't know how much exposure is how risky. We do know how much exposure is how risky. Tolouene, for example, does not cause cancer. Asbestos does, causes lung cancer and may cause a couple of others at high levels. At low levels, we are not absolutely certain. But we can over estimate what can possibly happen at low levels, and that is what we do to get these estimates of no significant risk. Notice I don't say "no risk", I said, "no significant risk". And those are the levels that are decided on, and those are extraordinarily safe. Similarly, for whatever - - what's the other one you mentioned, petroleum? The same action is applied there. The same approach is applied there. One knows the toxicity at very high levels, and you over estimate what can happen at low levels, and that is what we've been doing all along to get these estimates of no significant risk. MS. WELLS: One more question, and then I have a request which I will make of the panelists. MS. KIM: Hi. My name is Moon KiM, 18 Kimball Street. I have a question about the (inaudible) when they dig up that site, because as far as I understood it, there's a lot of foot traffic going to the T stop in and out, and I'm wondering if you are going to -- how you are going to control the traffic, and if you have to move to the next level of secured safety. How are you going to respond to that? Are you going to send everybody else to walk all the way around to use the other entrance, or etcetera? MS. CHURCH: The area that you are talking about, you're right, it's very close to the pathway that goes from the Grace property in One Alewife Center to the T Station and if we feel that it's necessary, we will close off that pathway and send people around. Because we have to -- our intention is to prevent exposure from everyone, and that will be the plan. It is not specifically stated in the management plan that I sent, but that's a very good question. MS. WELLS: Okay. There is another request, that you say again, specifically, the location of the tank that was being discussed. MS. CHURCH: I have an overhead that shows that, actually it shows it up here. The tank was located right here. This is the loading dock area owned and operated by W.R. Grace. The tank was located right inside this little box. NEIGHBOR: So it was covered or not covered? MS. CHURCH: Covered with pavement. NEIGHBOR: You said the whole area was covered, so people could walk by that area? MS. CHURCH: This whole area is fenced off through here, and the only -- NEIGHBOR: Fenced off from wind? MS. CHURCH: Actually, the predominant wind direction -- well, I'm not a meteorologist, so I shouldn't say that, but ---- NEIGHBOR: Is it in an enclosed structure? MS. CHURCH: No. There's not a roof over where the tank was removed. We wouldn't have been able to remove it, because it was an enormous tank, 20,000 gallons. MR. STIMPSON: Show them where the various structures are that exist around it. MS. CHURCH: This hatched area right here is the building and I believe it's like one and a half stories high. And this whole area right here, there's a fence running along here, there's a fence running along here. And these buildings that extend all the way beyond what the figure shows, but that area is buildings as well. MS. WELLS: Okay. NEIGHBOR: The structure was not covered? MR. STIMPSON: When I said enclosed, I meant on the sides, not on the top. NEIGHBOR: One side is not enclosed at all. MS. WELLS: Okay. I think you got the information that you needed. About the location? NEIGHBOR: More about the process of the underground tank. By the way, I'm not sure why we are being rushed through this period. MS. WELLS: Only because there was an understanding that you wanted to hear the asbestos report as well, and that there may be some relationship between all of this. NEIGHBOR: That's not my assumption. My assumption is that it's public which everyone wants to know and learn and share information to be as possible in each subject before moving on. MS. WELLS: Okay. All right. NEIGHBOR: I'm really sorry, but I am just really confused about where the bike path is on this map. Can you just clarify where it goes, because ---- MS. CHURCH: It's not actually shown, so the path that the woman was speaking of that goes from the Grace property -- this is one Alewife Center, so you know where that is, and this is all parking right in here. It runs right along here. There is a walking path here. NEIGHBOR: And the bike? MS. CHURCH: The bike path leaves here and runs, you know, along here. I'm not exactly sure where. I might be off by a few feet, but it runs from Russell Field to the T Station. NEIGHBOR: I think it does go all the way around the perimeter of Russell Field? NEIGHBOR: It follows the property lines. I've never actually ridden it, so ---- MS. WELLS: Okay. Do you have a question? NEIGHBOR: Yes, I do. I think obviously this is supposed to reassure us, I think it's certainly not. The fact that there was excavation going on, the public was not informed, and that the impression was just given a few minutes ago, this was done within a building. That's what I thought you had said the last ---- MR. STIMPSON: I didn't mean to ---- NEIGHBOR: The words you used made me think that. There clearly are routes that -- you must admit, and the response seems to be like we are being foolish about this, as if somehow wind can't blow dust. Certainly, wind can blow dust, but I wanted to ask for further clarification question. Was the tank actually removed? Was there any soil removed or brought to the property, and how did the trucks go if, indeed, there was excavation soil removed? That would be my next question. And we don't want to have to, as usual, pry this information out of folks. We would like to have the right to have a full characterization on all parts of this site. On this particular incident, can you please fully characterize so we do not need to ask any more questions. MS. CHURCH: When we do the tank removal, we characterize the area by doing head space screening. Do you know what that is? That's when you take a soil sample and you have what is called a photo ionization detector and it can read vapors coming from the soil sample. So you take a soil sample and you cover the top of the jar -- this is the procedure -- with tinfoil and you turn on your machine and you stick the probe in and it will tell you if there are vapors present coming from various contaminants, petroleum being one of them. And in this tank there was, I believe it was number six fuel oil that had been converted to number two fuel oil, and there was a little bit sitting at the bottom of the tank when we took it -- that had to be removed when we took it out. The screening of the soil told us that the soil around the tank was not contaminated with anything, with any petroleum or any other contaminants because we did not get significant readings using the machine that's called a HNU. So based on that and the fact that the tank was in excellent condition when we moved it, there was no evidence of holes. The tank was what's called cathodically protected, which means it has a sacrificial anode on it that will, when there is any deterioration of the steel -- there could be any deterioration of the steel tank, the anode will deteriorate instead, by directing electrical current, I believe. And so we used what was taken out of the excavation in order to remove the tank, we put it back into the excavation when we were done, and then clean fill was brought from off site to make up for the space that the tank had taken, and then the area was paved over again. So there was no material from the excavation left at the site, just the tank, which was taken to a tank yard. NEIGHBOR: Was the tank -- did it have any dirt on it as it was taken out, for example? MS. CHURCH: I actually have an overhead that shows what it looked like prepared. NEIGHBOR: Why was the tank removed? MS. CHURCH: It was required to be. It was no longer used, because the buildings had been converted to natural gas and so there was no reason to have a fuel tank in the ground anymore, the State requires us to. It's difficult to see, the tank was also insulated. It was a very well engineered tank design. So what you are seeing on the outside, this was polysheeting that was on the outside of the insulation, which was kind of scraped off to some degree when the tank was removed by the excavator, so that was the tank and ---- NEIGHBOR: What was the insulation? MS. CHURCH: We don't actually know what the insulation was. The tank was put in and manufactured in 1984, so it's not asbestos containing based on Federal regulations of asbestos. NEIGHBOR: If it was done before '84, how would you not know the material? MS. CHURCH: The records that accompany this tank when it as put in were very specific, except it only said insulation and there was one photograph that our field representative took when he was out there. He took a photograph of the remnants of the name and type of the insulation on the tank. The only words you could make out was glass, glass fiber, but you couldn't read what it was. So the documentation on the type of insulation wasn't present. But there are Federal regulations, I don't know what they are at the top of my head, but that prohibited the manufacturing of asbestos as of 1979; is that correct? MR. STIMPSON: I don't know the exact date. MS. CHURCH: I think it was 1979, I believe. And so certainly by 1984, tanks that were being produced and insulation was being used did not contain asbestos. It's glass, like the pink stuff that rolls out for insulation in your garage. NEIGHBOR: So you are just basing that on what you think was left, but you don't know? MS. CHURCH: No, we don't know what it is. We don't know what it is, as far as it could be a different type of -- there's no reason to believe that there is anything in there that could be a contaminant of any kind. NEIGHBOR: I would like to see in a report from you about how you are going to make the community feel confident about what you are going to dig up in that blue boxed area. I want assurances from you that notification to the community is going to go out in a whole host of languages, which is going to be difficult for you to do. You've got to look at the neighborhood, find out what languages the people speak, look at Lynch Towers, look at Jefferson Park, identify the languages that people speak there and get the notifications up in all languages, number one. Number two, you've got tens of thousands of people on bikes driving through that place, and you've got people going through it all over the night. You've got to put the notification so that everybody can see it, because we've got people who live God knows where, driving to Lexington, parking their bikes and driving up and down that bike path from Cambridge to Bedford in a park in the Alewife T station. So that's what I want to see. I want to see the notifications in a number of languages, and I want to see the notifications in lights, so that when people are in that neighborhood at night -- and you know, the kids who live in the neighborhood are all over the place all the time. They're in the Grace site, they are in my backyard. So I really want to see, and I've been looking for those assurances, that everybody knows what is going on. MS. WELLS: Please identify yourself. NEIGHBOR: My name is ?? and I live on 44 -- on Lagoon Street, and I'm interested in how schools will be notified as well, just as a follow up. Because the field nearby is used by schools in their sports programs, and particularly because of asbestos, as well as the petroleum. MS. CHURCH: Well, we have a mailing list that has about 150 names on it. It certainly wouldn't be very difficult to add the schools, somebody could send a letter to the superintendent, specifically to a principal of a specific school and let them know What we are going to do and ask them to make an announcement. Does that satisfy you? NEIGHBOR: No, I'm just -- up until now, you haven't been notifying the schools. MS. CHURCH: No, we haven't. According to the public involvement plan, people need to notify us if they want to be on the mailing list if they want to be alerted of the activities on the property. NEIGHBOR: When you mentioned notifying the school, the principal and the children and in talking to these children, a lot of the children don't understand. What I would suggest is a flyer go home with these children in the different languages that parents understand what is going on over here. Thank you. MR. DOBLER: Hi. My name is Paul Dobler. I'm a recent neighbor here, I moved here recently. I have different background -- environmental construction and architectural. I think I've come here for some reassurances. You know, I've dealt with hazardous material in all its different points of view. I just want some reassurances that -- I understand that when you go ahead and remove these contaminating materials that there are going to be people that are sampling and watching the process and making sure that it's done well and right. I want to be reassured that that's going to happen. But also, ultimately the goal here is to build on the site. And I have two questions. One is, how long is it going to take to remove the soil? I mean, how long is that possible hazard going to be there, is it a couple of days or is it a couple of months or a year? I don't know. The other question is, what about the last phase of this project, the construction. People who are building are going to be disturbing the site. The question on that is, during that process is there going to be the same sampling and oversight, people watching to make sure that the job gets stopped if something happens, or if there is any problems? Because I know that construction people, and certainly developers, cannot be trusted. MS. CHURCH: I'm sorry. Your first question -- how long, two or three days? I think it will take two or three days to excavate the soil that we are indicating needs to be removed on this plan. And two, your second question, the very same measures that we are going to -- pro-active measures that Wes outlined earlier that we are going to implement for this excavation, will go on during the whole development, as well. We won't be doing further sampling for petroleum or other -- naphthalene, other contaminants like that. We've already characterized the site for it, but when I get to -- when we talk about the airborne asbestos particulates management monitoring plan, it states that in areas where any data has been collected so far by W.R. Grace, if there have been trace or percent levels of asbestos detected in the soil, we're going to go back in to further do characterization. We haven't actually written that program yet, but when that program begins -- that characterization program will be available to the public. MS. WELLS: Let's go to somebody who hasn't, I believe, had a chance to speak back here. MR. KELLY: My name is Craig Kelly. I would appreciate a better explanation of why you didn't feel bio remediation was proper. My understanding was that it has actually become much more effective in the last few years, and it may, in fact, work very well at this site. MR. STIMPSON: It is my understanding, and I can go back and revisit with the people that did the actual work, that bioremediation is not necessarily effective for saturated soils, which is the condition that we have with this level of contamination. You are talking percent levels of contamination in the soil, and bioremediation is basically more effective where you have the opportunity to get air and nutrients into the soil and saturated soils just don't respond as well. MS. WELLS: Okay. How are we doing? Are we at a point where we could shift to another agenda item? NEIGHBOR: If I could, I will try to make the comment brief. I know there are representatives from the DEP here this evening, and I would request in this matter of David's original suggestion of rethinking or revisiting the idea of in-situ remediation of some sort, that the DEP maybe take another look at that and maybe collect some of the things that have been said by other people if there are sources for some of the comments and maybe take another look at that and make some sort of a recommendation. I know the system is grossly privatized and there may be limitations, there may be administrative reasons why you don't want to or whatever. But I would simply, I think from the community's point of view, ask that you maybe revisit this and maybe make a recommendation. The second thing I would like to say is, I would like to thank Amy for showing us the photograph. We would like to see more of these kinds of things in process. To my way of thinking, that photograph is really quite revealing and I hope that that photograph is not an example of how you aim to proceed with the rest of the excavation and whatever on this site. As far as the condition of the jacket that covers that, whatever that insulating material is, whatever the age of that is, it's really not determined by seeing the word glass written there somewhere. Those things sometimes contain several different layers of materials. You really don't know what all the layers are when it was manufactured, but I am really not encouraged at all by what I see in the photograph. I would like to know, did you write any of this down as you were proceeding with the excavation? Did you write it down once the thing was in the atmosphere. To my way of thinking, and this is like my worst nightmare, this is what I don't want to see on the site. And that's what you've showed me. MS. CHURCH: First of all, we do know when the tank was manufactured. The specifications indicate it was manufactured ---- NEIGHBOR: I'm talking about the insulation. MS. CHURCH: Well, I see your point. I see your point. I guess what you are saying is that the insulation could have been manufactured in 1976 and then put on the tank, although my opinion is that that's highly doubtful. Because you couldn't use it. NEIGHBOR: Even if it was manufactured in 1984 or '83 you don't know where it was purchased or what the laws regarding asbestos are in other countries. You know what they are in the United States, and you may know what they are, but in other countries they may not follow the same rules and regulations, so you really don't know and you shouldn't speculate either. My main concern is, this photograph -- this is what I don't want to see and would like to know for clarification, did you write this down? MS. CHURCH: No. No, we did not. NEIGHBOR: Don't you think that would have been a good idea? MS. CHURCH: No. I didn't think it was necessary. NEIGHBOR: Just one clarification. When you had talked to someone previously you said that the soil was tested and no contaminants were found, but I just want clarification for the record that asbestos was found in the soil surrounding the tank and I just want ---- MS. CHURCH: I meant vaporized contaminants that you can detect with the ---- NEIGHBOR: Right. Just making sure some contaminants were there, so that's correct. And that is the sky there, right, in the picture, this big, open area? MS. WELLS: With everybody's concurrence, we can come back to some questions on this particular project. It's now about ten minutes of nine and you can probably do the presentation on the asbestos in fifteen minutes, twelve minutes? MS. CHURCH: Fifteen, sixteen minutes. MS. WELLS: I know we agreed that you wanted to stop at about nine o'clock, so we have a problem here. Do you want to hear any presentation for about 15 minutes? Yes? Okay. NEIGHBOR: I strongly suggest there be at least another meeting, not in a rushed manner but in a forthright manner where people are not falling asleep. People do have other jobs, get to their jobs. And we have no time first of all to remember the questions, even if we -- most people are not going to have the time to write letters and go to the repository, this is our chance for public participation. Most people need a very long question and answer session, and maybe the whole next meeting. That may perhaps not be enough to (inaudible). So I don't think it's a good idea to proceed right now. We should have another meeting, or schedule another meeting. MS. WELLS: Let's find out. What do you propose here? MR. WARDZEL: We are all here gathered here. I realize that it's -- I mean, we have been to Planning Board meetings and others that go into midnight. NEIGHBOR: We can't quite hear you back here. MR. WARDZEL: I would suggest we at least try the presentation, let's see how far we get. MS. WELLS: They are proposing that they at least do the presentation and talk about when you would have an opportunity to come back for questions. MR. WARDZEL: Wait a minute, it's our meeting. NEIGHBOR: Are you suggesting that you have a subsequent meeting where the presentation will be given again? MR. WARDZEL: I am suggesting that we're making ourselves available this evening to go through this presentation, and spending another hour, especially with a comment period that continues on after this meeting, is not unreasonable to request. And that was our original intent, and it seems to me that it's reasonable to go forward. NEIGHBOR: I think it's probably a good idea to wait and do the asbestos at a subsequent meeting. This is the reason why -- it's not something you want to rush through. It's a very technical thing and responses that we've made this far are very technical and they're important. In addition, here you have taken a tank out where there was a reported asbestos, you didn't do a follow up on that, you did one round. You found asbestos, decided to remove the tank, and you didn't wet it down. Now, you haven't got a risk assessment for asbestos, and yet you're making a judgment that it's safe, even though you found asbestos and you're rushing it. It's silly. It doesn't make sense. You've got a zoning result from the City Council that's beyond your wildest dreams. So why are you rushing this? It makes no sense. It is not in the public's interest, it is not in the interest of public health. It seems to be that the sensible thing to do is to wait, have a subsequent meeting, just what we've already talked about. There might be more questions about that, but let's discuss it fully. Let's have an additional meeting where we can sort these things out the way they need to be sorted out. Don't forget, we receive money from the DEP. We are obligated to do things in a comprehensive, substantial manner and take this obligation very seriously. We don't like it when we have to go through an audit to administer the grant as to what we finally have to do, but we do it. So we would ask Grace, in your interest and in our interest, to agree to a subsequent meeting. It's not a large request. MR. STIMPSON: Fine. John, we will go along with that, and I think what we should probably do is not bother going into the asbestos presentation. I think take a few more questions and try to wrap this up in the next five minutes, and we will get a date and notify everybody for the next meeting and we'll focus on the next meeting for asbestos. NEIGHBOR: Thank you very much for that, and at that next meeting, could you see to it that William Concord is here? MR. STIMPSON: We can invite him. NEIGHBOR: Thank you. NEIGHBOR: Who is William Concord? NEIGHBOR: Chief Environmental Officer. MS. WELLS: Okay. I think everybody has heard, John has said that they will agree to agree that they will postpone the presentation on asbestos, they will identify a subsequent date, and get out notice to you for that meeting. So those of you who still have questions on the previous presentation will agree to another little bit. Because a lot of people, not my decision but your decision, to bring closure around nine o'clock, so I want to honor that for you. So let's see what we need to do, in the next five minutes or so. MS. CHURCH: Let me say something just before people start to pick up and leave the meeting. The twenty day comment period that I mentioned extending from tomorrow to the end on the 23rd, is going to apply to the two reports that I presented tonight. So everything we went over tonight, if you have comments, please send them to me and then the twenty day comment period for the two reports that I haven't presented, will begin the day after I give the presentation. We'll have to figure out what that is. NEIGHBOR: Thank you. That answers my questions. MR. BASS: This is David Bass, I live on Norris Street. Wes, you made a comment at the beginning that the site, in its current state, undisturbed proposes no significant risk and I happen to agree with that. And as I understand it, to paraphrase what's been said here the reason that you are looking to excavate the 250 cubic yards is because the laws of the State require that you do so or that you do something, and that is the most appropriate method. My question is, is there nothing you can do that would be satisfactory to you and your client, that would entail leaving it in place that would still be satisfactory to the State. And I guess -- we have representatives from DEP here, perhaps I am addressing my question both to you and to them. Isn't there anything we can come up with which the State will find satisfactory, which Grace would also find satisfactory? MS. WELLS: I apologize several times that I was forgetting Patricia Donahue, especially with your colleague Jack. What can you say to Mr. Bass? MS. DONAHUE: I am Patricia Donahue with the Department of Environmental Protection and the Bureau of Roadside Cleanup, and I brought along one of my senior technical staff members, Jack Miano. We've been tracking this project for about a year now, and I guess to answer your question, I think that Wells has agreed to re- evaluate whether or not in-situ bioremediation may be inapplicable technology, and I think that we could also do a little research back in our office, because there might be some other technologies that also might be applicable, as opposed to excavation. I think if -- this isn't a huge amount of contamination to move, and so at a typical site, I think that excavation would be the most feasible and cost effective alternative. But given the concerns about asbestos, maybe we should do a second look at whether or not there are some in-situ technologies. And the goal here is to achieve what we call a permanent solution, reach closure. The alternative would be to consider a temporary solution for this area, and not to reach permanent closure. MS. MIETH: Carolyn Mieth. Is it possible to have a brief development update, the last item on your agenda? MS. WELLS: Ask your neighbors here whether they want five minutes of that. I know they hadn't planned it to be lengthy. Do you want to hear anything about development? NEIGHBOR: I would rather go into -- since we are already discussing the chemical aspects of it, I'd like to finish that before we jump into a development issue which could go on. MS. WELLS: Are there other questions about the two reports that Amy has presented tonight, questions related to that? NEIGHBOR: I'm not sure if this is a comment or question. I feel the diagrams out there to be extremely complete and are very carefully full of information and I have a great deal of skill working with that kind of information. Even I found it difficult among all the black and white symbols that look similar to identify, quickly looking at them, which represented that is where contamination levels were found and listen to what people are saying, the people looking at them. I think many if not most of the people here share that, and I would request that in future diagrams, some more colorful and clearly delineated areas on pits will be used. Thank you. NEIGHBOR: I also would like to follow up on that. I was concerned in this diagram here, the overhead, the bike path, for example, is not on it and I wonder why such a public use area which would be very important from the prospective of the community and people looking at this would be omitted, and whether it can be included. MS. CHURCH: What I can do is, I can look at the survey, the digital files of the survey plans that I have and see if it's on there. And if it's not, I can approximate it as best I can. We have to make sure it's been surveyed in so that we can put it on in the correct place. But if you will accept an approximation, I can do that if we don't have the survey information. I don't want to put it in the wrong place. I'll check it. MR. HOLMAN: Aaron Holman. You do have on there the red line, and I do take it every day. And one of the things I noticed, particularly when the train is stalled in the tunnel in this area is the amount of -- if you pardon my language -- the horrendous amount of awful crap that is coming down the sides of the tunnel wall. Now, I do know that it goes through this contaminated area. I'm wondering if any investigation has been done to evaluate what that is and are your surveys consistent with the presence of some unknown stuff inside the tunnel? It's seeping down the walls, it's gross orange. It strikes me this is another avenue for contamination. I wonder to what extent you've investigated this, and to what extent this is a concern as a pass way for human exposure. MS. CHURCH: I can answer part of that, Wes can help me out. We are aware of the leak in the tunnel and Grace has been in contact with the MBTA since we first became aware of it which I believe was when the tunnel was first finished, that the leak was there and have asked them to fix it. And as far as monitoring is concerned, we have ground water wells located on either side of the tunnel where we've taken samples, almost -- well, for a ten year period intermittently, and tested it for VFCs, naphthalene, and other contaminants, and have never found levels that we feel pose a problem, based on risk and risk based values. We have modeled the ground water table in that area, and it looks like that leak is actually causing a depression on both the Russell Field side and the W.R. Grace side. So it is a concern to us, as it is to you, and we will continue to monitor it. I wanted to say one more thing, this is what I wanted to ask Wes about. I think there was some testing of that material by another company; is that correct? MR. STIMPSON: I don't know that for a fact. We did do testing of the water inside the tunnel back in '88, when the leak was much more prevalent than it is now and did not detect any contamination associated with the Grace site inside the tunnel at the time. I don't know whether the formation that has been photographed and is on the wall has been tested, and if anyone has tried to characterize what's been causing it, other than the obvious stuff of iron and cement and calcium build up. NEIGHBOR: I guess I'm wondering if anyone has conclusively identified the nature of some -- there is a report that the report the MBTA has data on the sludge. I can't tell you what it's -- we have it in our office, and I think Peter has it too. NEIGHBOR: Okay, let's go. Just a quick comment. Anything that eats away the shoes of the men who work in the tunnel is a cause for concern from my point of view. MS. WELLS: Before I go, the reports that you've read tonight and associated issues, I'm sure that those who would like to hear something about the development would want to linger after we recess this meeting. I'm sure the people at the panel table will be glad to tell you some bit about the development; is that right? If people want to just come up and look at the pictures. MR. STIMPSON Oh sure, absolutely. MS. WELLS: I just want to clarify that. NEIGHBOR: We are obviously not done asking questions. MS. WELLS: No. No, I wasn't insinuating that. NEIGHBOR: My suggestion would be rather than informally done, this be done in the full view of all people who can ---- MS. WELLS: It wouldn't preclude full presentation, it would just be for those who somehow or other wanted something tonight, they would have a chance to do that. NEIGHBOR: I'm suggesting at the next meeting not only asbestos be on the agenda, but the continuation of the questions concerning the first phase of the petroleum investigation. MS. WELLS: I see. NEIGHBOR: Could I make a recommendation about the development plans? What you might consider is, I assume there will be another mailing for the follow up meeting. MR. WARDZEL: Actually, we can take care of that right now. What we suggest is on next Tuesday, June 8 at 7:00 p.m., same location for our follow up meeting on the RTN on asbestos. NEIGHBOR: I would suggest you do a mailing, because there were some people who were here who have left. When you do the mailing, why don't you do a short summary of your building plans. Include it in the mailing. People can think about it and come in prepared to ask questions at the subsequent meeting. That's probably the best way to do it, because a lot of times people ask questions that when they think about it they can answer it themselves. This way would eliminate some of that, and they can come in and ask more meaningful questions. I would just make that recommendation. NEIGHBOR: John, we request the following, that we can put the chronicle -- very good notification. Certainly, it deserves another notification in the public records, so I request following the 15th -- I think if you are going to do a mailing to mail it on the Friday, June 4, to tell people that there's going to be a meeting on June 8 is not adequate notice. MS. WELLS: Okay. The hearing with concerns about timely notification -- we'll try to think about how to do that. You've been waiting a bit, let me see if I can get to you. MR. CIGNETTI: My name is Peter Cignetti. I did want to defer to Mr. Bass with regard to some enlightenment on the tunnel issues. I just want to say that we have had some significant subservice hits right above the tunnel on the Russell Field side and with PAH's and I am concerned and that data has not come out in a public forum, it will soon, sooner than later we hope. But I'm very concerned about what I would consider to be kind of a cavalier attitude towards the no significant contaminant on the site, the Naphthalene and the associated PAH's. And the idea of excavation is to me, problematic. I know we had some significant odors in the neighborhood, and I want to say it was around 1995, Wes may have better enlighten as to whether there were some borings or some bio mediation or something that was done in that area, I believe it was the summer of '95. And I envision, although you all don't seem to think that these things are a problem, certainly Naphthalene is moving in the realm of the carcinogenic and in some States in the country it's already classified as such or has moved into that realm, very low exposure, at least ten parts per million, is what they are recommending. So I'm very concerned about that, and I really would like to see a significant effort put in the direction of some other method versus excavation of any site contaminants. MS. WELLS: Thank you. We said five minutes, and again I'm responding to your request that it does not become totally fragmented, because some people really were trying to make their plans around nine o'clock. So I think we ought to honor what you agreed to earlier very shortly, and conclude. MR. YORDA: Ralph Yorda, I live on Ringe Avenue. I really would like to get a certain description of where the excavation is. Is that along the walking path? MS. CHURCH: This is the road that comes from the tunnel and it moves around the parking lot that's right here at W.R. Grace, this area right here. Just about where that road comes in, or just about from point E that's fenced off. And the path runs -- I'm sorry, I'm trying to remember this. NEIGHBOR: Straight across. MS. CHURCH: Yeah, I know. What he is asking is exactly where does it start. I'm having a hard time answering it. ??? Which side of the path is it in? MS. CHURCH: Right here. No, it's further up right here. So actually, we will be excavating in the path. NEIGHBOR: I just have a couple of benevolent comments. I've been leading nature walks for the past few weeks and will be for the rest of June, with some significant prominent individuals. MS. WELLS: When you are all talking to each other, it's difficult to concentrate and for us to get the recording. Excuse me for interrupting, thank you very much. NEIGHBOR: The content of the nature walks is that we begin at the Pond, we are going to the site to the reservation and if everybody would notice how beautifully green the area is right now and I just want to know how significant the activity is going to be to kind of scout temporarily that area. And also I would like to mention to Mario and to John that I really hope you will reconsider development on the site. It's very beautiful naturally, if you walk through there as many people do. I come down on Sunday afternoon and comment to people as they walk by, the Orioles, the Yellow Warblers and Redwing Blackbirds and Kingfish, and I could go on and on. It's quite naturally beautiful and I think W.R. Grace is a multi-million dollar company, so I don't know if it is in your best interest. It certainly doesn't seem like it is in our best interest, and it's not in the natural communities best interest. Thanks. MS. WELLS: Something new? I think we will make this the last question. I know some of the other people may be upset, but I think it would be in the interest of what you said earlier. I'm going to call this the last question. NEIGHBOR: I have a question about the no significant risk, especially since this area is near the bike path, which is obviously an area of increased aerobic activity, and also near a playing field, where there is also increased aerobic activity on the parts of community members and children. Are you accounting for that at all, when you are looking at no significant risk? Is that at all part of the data that you have? MR. FAVORITO: Yes, it's accounted for. We look at that sort of situation. NEIGHBOR: How so? MR. FAVORITO: By taking into account that our children are breathing hard and playing around hard on. NEIGHBOR: But you have the specifics that you are looking at? MR. FAVORITO: Say that again, please? NEIGHBOR: This area is an area of increased aerobic activity by many, many people. What studies would you be drawing on to make the statement? MR. FAVORITO: We take into account of how hard people breathe when they do aerobic activities. There are many studies which measure how hard people breath under such circumstances. That's the things we look at. MS. WELLS: The next meeting is -- when do you propose the next meeting, John? MR. WARDZEL: The next meeting is Tuesday, June 8 at 7:00 p.m. here. NEIGHBOR: It's too soon. You can't even get the announcement in the paper. This is about asbestos. The whole community who haven't been able to make it tonight and can't make it on another date will not know anything about it. It's just not fair. You scheduled too much on this day. It was too much with the schedule the way it is. You need to accommodate the communication ---- MR. STIMPSON: So what's fair? NEIGHBOR: Aren't you are required to produce the paper, something like that. NEIGHBOR: Let's just see what makes sense. I know they want to, to see that it is fair to accommodate you so what we are proposing -- just ask that it will be on Thursday night, a week or two -- two weeks from tonight. MR. WARDZEL: We'll do it in two weeks. I'm not going to commit to an exact day, because obviously we need to check our calendars. What's next Monday? It won't be next week, it will be the following week. MS. WELLS: Thank you all very much, and we'll see you in a few days. (Whereupon, the hearing suspended) C E R T I F I C A T E I, Barbara A. Milne, a Professional Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify that the foregoing Public Hearing was taken before me on June 3, 1999. The said hearing was taken audiographically by myself and then transcribed under my direction. To the best of my knowledge, the within transcript is a complete, true and accurate record of said deposition. I am not connected by blood or marriage with any of the said parties, nor interested directly or indirectly in the matter in controversy. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this 14th day of June, 1999. ______________________________ Barbara A. Milne, Notary Public My Commission Expires: April 7, 2000