View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY " COAKLEY LANDFILL SITE
MARCH 15, 1990 NORTH HAMPTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NORTH HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTRODUCTION SDMS
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) held
an informational public meeting on March 15, 1990 to present
their recommendations for addressing contamination at the Coakley
Landfill hazardous waste site in Greenland and North Hampton, New
Hampshire. A summary of the other cleanup options evaluated in
detail in the site Feasibility Study and a review of the
information contained in the Proposed Plan were also presented.
The meeting was held at the North Hampton Elementary School in
North Hampton, New Hampshire and began at approximately 7:35 pm.
The agenda presented at the meeting is attached as Appendix A.
Appendix B is a handout from the community group Citizens
Organized Against Seacoast Toxics (COAST), which they distributed
immediately prior to the meeting.
Approximately 90 people attended the meeting including several
reporters from area newspapers and radio stations. The EPA was
represented by Daniel Coughlin, New Hampshire Superfund Section
Chief; Steven Calder, Remedial Project Manager; and Susan Frank,
Community Relations Coordinator. NHDES was represented by
Remedial Project Manager Michael Robinette. Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
technical contractor to NHDES, was represented by Project Manager
Arthur Cunningham; and EPA's community relations contractor,
Ebasco Services, Inc., was represented by Jill Paradis. The
meeting adjourned at approximately 10:05 p.m.
PRESENTATIONS
Dan Coughlin of EPA opened the meeting with introductions of the
government representatives and contractors. Mr. Coughlin spoke
briefly about the Superfund process and opportunities for public
participation. He announced the March 16, 1990 opening of a 30
day public comment period1, during which time EPA would accept
written comments on the Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan for
the Coakley Landfill site. Mr. Coughlin also announced the
informal public hearing, at which EPA would accept oral comments,
to be held on April 3, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. at the elementary
school. Mr. Coughlin then turned the floor over to Michael
Robinette of NHDES.
Mr. Robinette's presentation described the site history, the
Remedial Investigation (RI), the hydrogeology of the site, and
the results of a site Risk Assessment.
Steven Calder, EPA's Remedial Project Manager, discussed the five
alternatives evaluated in detail in the Feasibility Study
performed at the site. He explained that EPA's Proposed Plan
does not address the clean-up of an oily debris area located on
the site because petroleum products are not a hazardous substance
as defined by the Superfund statute. He further stated that the
final disposition of this oily debris area was being referred to
the State of New Hampshire Oil Spill Program. Mr. Calder also
explained that a remedy to address the management of migration of
contamination is not being proposed at this time due in part to a
need for further detailed characterization of the contaminant
plume, as well as concern for possible damage to wetland areas
that might be caused by sampling equipment.
1On March 30, 1990 EPA announced a 30-day extension of the comment period, bringing the closing date to May 14, 1990 from the original April 14, 1990 close.
Presentations by Arthur Cunningham of Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
explained the cleanup goals for the site and evaluated
technological alternatives for attaining these goals. Mr.
Cunningham also discussed in detail the technologies that would
be used to implement EPA's preferred alternative.
The floor was opened to questions at approximately 8:20 p.m.
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The major issues raised at the public meeting have been
summarized below under the following categories: 1) EPA and
NHDES investigation results, cleanup methods, and procedures; 2)
possible contamination of the public water supply; 3) possible
contamination from Pease Air Force Base; 4) cost and
responsibility for cleanup at the site; 5) management of
migration of contamination and the oil debris area; and 6)
miscellaneous issues concerning Superfund.
INVESTIGATION RESULTS, CLEANUP METHODS, AND PROCEDURES
Comment; A resident commented on what she believed to be a
discrepancy in the Proposed Plan. She stated that the first
report of leachate was in 1975 not 1983 as the Proposed Plan
states. She wanted to know why the State didn't respond to the
original leachate reported in 1975 until 1983.
Response; Mike Robinette responded that he did not know why
sampling was not done in 1975. He said that in 1983 sampling was
done by the Water Supply and Pollution Control Division (WSPCD)
of the NHDES.
Comment: A resident asked why Coakley is the only one of several
landfills in the area on the National Priorities List (NPL).
Response; Dan CoughI in explained that EPA had received reports
from various sources that hazardous waste had been disposed of at
the Coakley Landfill. EPA had also considered the findings of
water contamination in the area of the Coakley Landfill.
Comment; A resident asked how much contamination exists on the
east side of Route 1 across from the landfill.
Response: Mike Robinette said the State has found no major
contamination in the wells sampled along Route 1 east of the
landfill. Any contaminants found were not at high levels. He
described the location of buildings along Route 1 still on well
water, and where the wells that have been sampled are located.
He said the flow of contamination off-site had not been
consistent, because pumping from wells affected the flow of
contaminated groundwater.
Comment; A meeting attendee asked how EPA and NHDES collected
information on what was in the landfill. The commentor made an
analogy to giving a dentist carte blanche to drill a tooth
without first x-raying the area. He said he could not imagine
that EPA would go ahead and clean up a site without knowing
exactly what is in the landfill.
Response; Art Cunningham stated that information was collected
from old aerial photographs and chemical analysis of samples
taken from test pits dug in the landfill.
Comment; Two residents asked what guarantee EPA had that
proposedcleanup procedures will be adequate. For example, who
will pay ten years down the road if EPA realizes the problem has
not been solved, particularly if the remedy is conducted by a
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)?
Response; Dan Coughlin stated that PRPs enter into a Consent
Decree that allows for the possibility of unanticipated cleanup,
or remediation, that may be necessary at a future date. Total
releases from liability are not likely to be given.
Comment; A resident asked the depth of the sampling wells. She
expressed her confusion about the difference between groundwater
and water found in bedrock. She asked why concern about
contaminated water stops once the water reaches bedrock since it
continues to move and can rise again, potentially contaminating
other sources, including, ultimately, the ocean.
Response; Mike Robinette and Arthur Cunningham explained that
bedrock wells are approximately 200 feet from the surface,
drilling usually having penetrated approximately 150 feet through
bedrock. They explained that sampling wells in the wetland area
were drilled approximately 25 feet through bedrock after having
gone through 20 to 30 feet of clay (overburden). They also said
the contractors had difficulty collecting overburden water
samples from the wetland areas.
Dan Coughlin defined the different types of water sources. He
discussed the difficulty of tracking the flow of the contaminated
plume and the extent of the contaminant migration when the
contamination is at low levels. Mr. Coughlin also talked about
the difficulty of putting sampling wells in some areas where the
plume may exist, especially wetlands. (A map showing the
location of bedrock sampling wells was displayed.)
Comment; One attendee asked if contaminants could become
airborne. He felt that EPA determined a level of air quality it
considers acceptable and everyone must accept it. He said he did
not like EPA acting like "Big Brother," telling the public
everything was OK when actually there were contaminants in the
air.
Response: NHDES' technical contractor responded that it is a
natural process for a landfill to emit gases. However, air
quality test results to date have not indicated a risk to the
public.
Comment; Several attendees stated their concerns for local
residents affected by the site and felt there should be some sort
of government compensation. A past resident of Lafayette Terrace
said the landfill used to produce lots of runoff. He stated that
residents have been exposed to these conditions for quite a
while. He wanted to know how EPA would compensate area residents
for the problems the Coakley landfill has caused them.
Response; Dan Cough1 in responded that, under Superfund, only
funding for cleanup of contaminated site areas is provided, not
funding for reparations to individuals. The only exceptions are
in cases of substantial and serious threats posing immediate
danger, such as the circumstances that existed at Times Beach and
Love Canal, but these are very unusual.2 In these cases,
measures such as temporary or permanent relocation are
considered. ATSDR3 is the agency that makes the determination of
the magnitude of the threat. ATSDR was called upon at Coakley to
2See the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) for a more complete explanation of these exceptions.
3The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
assess the potential health risks associated with water
contamination.
Comment: Several people at the meeting had questions about the
cap. One person expressed concern that, given the steep grade of
the landfill, severe erosion will probably occur. He asked when
breakdown of the cap could be expected.
Response; EPA responded that the remedy includes cap maintenance
and that the remedy will be reevaluated every five years as
required by Federal statutes.
Comment: A resident asked if the proposed cap was similar to the
that installed at the Rye landfill.
Response; EPA responded that the proposed cap is similar to the
cap at the Rye landfill. However, the capping of the Coakley
Landfill will be much more detailed and will include the capture
and treatment of gases and leachate.
Comment; A resident asked if there is any potential for the
tearing of the synthetic barrier other than from roots growing
through it. He asked what will happen when the cap settles, and
what is the difference in the cost for use of synthetic material
compared to the use of clay.
Response; Art Cunningham stated that the synthetic material
stretches to withstand settling. However, the material may not
have enough elasticity to withstand burrowing animals. He said
the synthetic barrier costs about the same as clay. When pressed
for a dollar figure, Mr. Cunningham estimated cost of materials
for the synthetic material to be $700,000.
Comment; An attendee asked about the thickness of the synthetic
barrier.
Response: EPA responded that the synthetic barrier would be
approximately 1/8 inch thick.
Comment; One resident asked about the total weight of the
synthetic membrane to be used for the cap, and and what the
ultimate disposition of that material would be.
Response: Dan Coughlin said he was unsure about the weight of
the material and would look into it. He urged the resident to
call him at EPA for that answer. No plans for disposal of the
material to be used at the site exist at this time.
Comment; A resident of the nearby mobile home park asked about
the possibility of exposure for residents during excavation at
the site. She also asked if residents would be informed in a
timely fashion should a hazardous situation occur.
Response: EPA responded that the cleanup system is designed to
control hazards. Most exposure would be to the clean cover
layers of sand and soil. EPA said residents would be informed of
hazardous occurrences.
Comment; A resident expressed concern about the possibility of
off-site contamination from equipment and facilities used during
cleanup.
Response; EPA responded that, when the remediation system is set
up at the site, an on-site decontamination area will also be
established. EPA assured the public that all materials leaving
the site will be decontaminated.
8
Comment; A North Hampton town official asked why a stenographer
was not transcribing the meeting.
Response: EPA replied that it was a public informational meeting
as announced. A stenographer would be present at the informal
public hearing scheduled for April 3, 1990 to record oral
comments.
POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION OF THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
Comment; A resident asked if EPA could guarantee there was no
contamination from the Coakley Landfill in the public water
supply and asked from what other source(s) contamination could
originate. Several residents also asked if wells would continue
to be monitored regularly.
Response: EPA and NHDES replied that wells currently being
tested would continue to be monitored by the State. They also
stated that contamination to the public water supply could
originate from other landfills besides Coakley. Water from other
area wells with taste and color problems could be the result of
hard water rather than potentially toxic contamination.
Residents experiencing these problems could seek private well
testing services and/or water softeners for their own water
supplies.
Comment; A meeting attendee asked EPA to assure the public that
leaching would not affect area wells.
Response: Dan Coughlin responded that EPA plans to clean up the
contaminated groundwater to meet drinking water standards.
Comment: A meeting attendee questioned EPA's findings of no
contamination of off-site drinking water. He believed that there
was contamination of the surface water off-site to the east. He
based his belief on the abnormal appearance of the water a few
days before the meeting.
Response: Mike Robinette described the location of sampling
wells where testing was done on the east side of the site—both
on- and off-site. He explained the possible confusion with
hazardous contamination and the natural biological breakdown of
organic matter that creates a sheen on the surface of water.
Comment: A resident asked if the water would ever be drinkable,
and if so, when she would be able to safely use her well.
Response; Dan Coughlin said the water will be cleaned to
drinking water standards in approximately 10 years.
Comment: A resident living southeast of Park Circle asked about
contamination in North Brook and if there would be further
studies done in that area.
Response; Mike Robinette said that no further studies were
planned for that area. The State has found no significant
contamination in that area except in one well. The residence
supplied by that well has since been hooked up to the municipal
water supply.
\
POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION FROM PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
Comment; A resident questioned the use of incineration as a
cleanup method. He noted that incinerator waste from Pease Air
Force Base (AFB) had contributed to the contamination to the
Coakley Landfill Site.
10
Response: Dan Coughlin responded that technological controls
would be put in place to prevent contamination. He explained
that a process of solidification of waste ash and further cleanup
of the solidified material would prevent any future problems.
Comment: A commentor asked where Pease AFB is disposing of their
waste now. He asked if Pease AFB is now being tested and
questioned whether they are continuing to pollute.
Response; Dan Coughlin responded that he was not sure where
Pease is currently putting their waste. He said that studies
concerning contamination at Pease Air Force Base are continuing.
Comment; A North Hampton town official asked for a point of
clarification. He said he had attended a PRP meeting at EPA
where EPA said no toxicity testing had been performed at Pease
Air Force Base.
Response; Steve Calder clarified the point, stating that he had
been unsure of the existence of the tests at the earlier meeting,
but further research showed that results of EP toxicity tests are
available in the site Administrative Record.
COST AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLEANUP
Comment; A resident voiced concern about several issues related
to cost recovery and responsibility for cleanup. The resident
wanted to know who received the money from the fines against the
PRPs. She also asked if the Town of North Hampton is named as a
PRP, will the taxpayers be primarily responsible for the cost of
cleanup. The resident also wanted to know if taxes would be
increased as a result of the Coakley Landfill Site cleanup.
11
Response; EPA responded that fines are not levied against PRFs.
It was also explained that EPA could use the Superfund to clean
up the site and that cost recovery occurs later through a legal
process. Alternatively, the PRPs could agree to conduct the
remedy and determine the cost share for each PRP on their own.
Comment: Two residents asked about the crushed bedrock that had
allegedly been for sale at the Coakley site. They wanted to know
why it was not mentioned in the government reports, what happened
to the bedrock, and who profited from its sale. They felt that
those involved in profiting from the landfill should in some way
be responsible for its cleanup.
Response; EPA stated that the crushed bedrock was discussed in
the Remedial Investigation (RI). Both EPA and NHDES stated that
they did not know the details of the sale of and/or profit from
the bedrock.
Comment; Several meeting attendees wanted to know why the State
of New Hampshire was not named as a PRP. They reasoned that
because it was the State that authorized dumping at the site, it
was the State's financial responsibility to clean up the site.
Another meeting attendee asked why the State could not be
considered negligent if it did not act on its knowledge of the
contamination at the site for many years. (These comments drew
applause from the audience.)
Response; Mike Robinette responded that the State had been
considered, but EPA chose not to name the State as a PRP. Dan
Coughlin further explained that the State of New Hampshire did
not fall under EPA Federal statutory criteria for naming PRPs,
which includes owners, operators, generators and/or transporters.
12
Comment; One resident asked how much money had been spent to
date to investigate PRPs and why that money could not have been
used to clean up the site.
Response; Dan Coughlin said that he was not certain of the
amount spent on PRP search, but that the Federal statute requires
EPA to search for PRPs.
MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION AND THE OIL DEBRIS AREA
Comment; A meeting attendee asked why management of migration of
the off-site plume is not addressed in the Proposed Plan.
Response; Dan Coughlin replied that EPA did not address the
management of migration because of possible damage to sensitive
wetland areas. He said EPA will continue to monitor the wetland
area and will do a separate site study on the wetland area. He
explained that the wetland area is not badly contaminated. He
said that, according to wetland experts at EPA and other
agencies, it is better to leave wetland areas alone if no major
problem exists because the areas could naturally clean
themselves.
Comment; A commentor addressed a question to the State about the
cleanup of the oil debris area. He expressed his frustration
with the cleanup process saying that the public has waited for 15
years.
Response; Mike Robinette responded that cleanup of the oil
debris area had been referred to the State Oil Spill Program.
13
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES CONCERNING SUPERFUND
Comment: Several attendees addressed the issue of future land
use at the Coakley site. Concern that the land was lost to
eternity and would never be usable again was also expressed.
When originally permitted by the State, was it contemplated that
the landfill would have another use in the future?
Response; Dan Coughlin responded that no Superfund site has been
cleaned up to the point of making it better than its original
condition. He agreed that it is a serious philosophical question
to be addressed in Congress.
Comment: Several people at the meeting expressed their concerns
about the broader long-term effects of environmental
contamination. One person asked that a message be sent to
Washington about acid rain. He wanted to know why Washington was
backing down on acid rain control policies. He called for the
need for public concern about our air quality now to prevent
problems like this in the future. Another commentor expressed
his concern about the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant going on line.
Response: Dan Coughlin expressed the inability of the EPA
Regional office to address these issues.
14
COMMITMENTS FOR FURTHER ACTION AT THE SITE
During the course of the meeting, the following commitments were
made by EPA:
1. In response to a resident's question, Dan Coughlin said
that he would find out the total weight of the
synthetic membrane to be used for the cap.
2. A representative for EPA said that EPA will do a
separate site study on the wetland area.
15
APPENDIX A
AGENDA
Public Informational Meeting Coakley Landfill Superfund Site
North Hampton, NH
March 15, 1990 7:30 pm
INTRODUCTION The Superfund Process
Dan Coughlin NH Superfund Section Chief U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
II. SITE HISTORY and REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION RESULTS
Mike Robinette Remedial Project Manager NH Dept. of Environmental Services
REVIEW OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Art Cunningham Roy F. Weston, Contractor to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
IV. EVALUATION OF THE REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Steve Calder Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
V. DESCRIPTION OF EPA's PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Art Cunningham Roy F. Weston, Contractor to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VI. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Dan Coughlin, Moderator NH Superfund Site Chief U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
COAST. APPENDIX B
CITIZENS ORGANIZED AGAINST SEACOA8T TOXICS t/uL.ii.«*u/y/K No. H<unpton, KH 03862 Phont : < f f e i
IS SWEEPING THIS TOXIC-DISASTER .UNDER THE RUG THE ANSWER?
THE E.P.A. THINKS SO!!!!'!!!!
DO YOU?
THE PREFFERED ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY IS NOT A CLEAN-UP SOLUTION ITS AN OFFENSIVE
AND REPULSIVE COVER-UP!!!!
IT MUST NOT BE APPROVED!!!
HELP US, HELP YOU!
Volunteers and support needed immediately to prevent this disaster
from continuing there is much more than meets the eye!!!
Please contact C.O.A.S.T. if you are concerned § 964-9755 ask
for Lillian or @ (207)-384-1952 ask for John or write to above j
address. Your help and concern is appreciated
Recommended