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