SDMS DocID 459011

S'u'PERFUMDj RECORDS

n PHILIP J. HARTER SunE404

Site

sak:

P t n <>-\,

2301M STREET, NW WASHINCTON, DC 20037

202-887-1033 FAX: 202-887-1036

Mareh 16,1994

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Pine Street Barge Canal Coordinating Coundl and Those Interested in its Activities

Fr: P h m p J . H a i W n a n i e l F i ^

Re: Coundl Meeting of March 30-31; Workgroup Meetings March 29-31, April 14-15; Summaries of Previous Coundl and Workgroup Meetings

Tbe Coordinating Coundl is next scheduled to meetfixim 5:30 to 9H)0 pan^ March 30-31, 1994, at Burlington Electric Department, 585 Pine Street As agreed, this meeting wiU be taped for broadcast on cable access television. On tbe 30th we wUl discuss the Protocols, community partidpation, and receive a report fiom tbe Fate and Transport Workgroup. On the 31st tbe Ecological Risk and Human Health Workgroups wiU report on their meetings.

The Ecological Risk Woikgroup wiU meet March 29th firom 10:00 ajn. to 5KK> p.iii., and March 30th from &00 ajn. to 12KX> pan. a t Green Mountain Power, 25 Green Mountain Power Drive, South Buriington. The Ecological Risk Workgroup has also scheduled a meeting for April 14-15 at GMP.

Tbe Human Health Workgroup wiU meetfirom 1:00 pan. to 5:00 pan. BCarch 30th. and from 9KK) aan. to 5:00 pan. March Slst, also at GMP.

Endosed are summaries of the March 2 Coordinating Coundl meeting, the March 1-2 Ecological Risk Woikgroup meeting, and the March 3-4 Fate and Transport Workgroup meeting.

i As provided in the protooola, tins sommaiy haa not been approved by the Conndl, nor ahould i t be constraed aa

f~\ rpptwwntiniy the nffidal pntritinn «<f the Conndl or aav Member aa to what tranmirnd at tlin mflirti«g,

PINE STREET BARGE CANAL COORDINATING COUNCIL

MEETING SUMMARY

MEETING OF MARCH 2,1994

New Business

A Member reported that George Pinder wiU be available to present his model to the Coundl on r i l 19,1994. The Coundl agreed to set aside part of the agenda that night for his presentation.

Susan Compton reported that she had not discussed televising Coundl meetings with her wedge, but that she seriously doubted the City woiUd oppose taping the meetings. A Member suggested showing meetings of spedal significance on cable access television and storing tapes of aU meetings in a Ubrazy. This would enable people to watch meetings of particular interest at their leisure. Othera suggested allowing the cable station to choose which meetings to broadcast. The CouncU agreed to tiy to tape the March 30-31,1994 meeting as a trial run.

Meeting Sonunaries

A Member asked that the meeting summaries be distributed more quickly. As has been the case before this meeting, summaries wiU be &zed if length pennits.

Future Land Use

A Member reported that the Southem Connector has been discussed in each of the workgroup meetingB. The wortgroups need to know whether the potential fior highway construction should affect the studies, exposure scenarios, and risk assessments t h are considering EPAnoted that it dealt with this issue in the past and dedded not to consider the highwsor as a fiiture land use because too manjr hurdles stood in the way of construction. EPA feels it wiU be difScult to evaluate the ramifications of highway construction and use until there is at least some certainty as to its route.

Another Member reported that the highway reaUgnment process is on-going. The preliminaiy Act 250 permit has been completed. As soon as discussions conceniing a piece of land along the jproposed realignment route condude, the Coundl wiU have a better idea of whether realignment is feasible. However, the prospect of bmlding tbe highway through the site has not been abandoned.

A Member leiterated that the essential question for the Coimdl to answer is whether the

As provided in the protoools, this sununary has not been approved by the Coundl, nor should it be construed as rBprmiantiny t he nffirial Ttmrition of t h e Cound l or anv Member a s to wha t tTanroired a t t he meetiny r workgroups should consider highway construction a potential fiiture land use. A member of the Ecological Risk Workgroup noted that potential highway construction wovdd not significantiy affect tbe ecological risk assessment Another member of that workgroup added that highways have been used as a cap at other sites as part of the remediation strategy.

Another Member relayed his constituents' interest in maintaining the potential for industrial development of tiie area along Pine Street that is zoned industriaL The Coundl agreed that this area—east of the wetlands — is likely to be developed for either industrial or highway use. The Coundl fiirther agreed that the wetiands to tbe west are not likely to be developed. The Coundl wiU revisit fiiture land use issues at its next meeting.

AOC Negotiations

EPA reported that the AOC negotiations began Februaiy 11,1994. The initial meeting focussed on incentives and deadlines for completion of the intemal PRP n^[otiations. Those negotiations should conclude soon. Another meeting was scheduled for March 15,1994, to work on AOC language. (This meeting was later postponed)

A Member asked when the protocols wiU be signed. Another Member reported that the PRPs have not looked at the protocols lately. The Coundl agreed to put the protocols on tbe agenda of the next Coordinating CouncU meeting.

Roles and Responsibilities

A Member reported that his uncertainty regarding the role of the Coundl had been cleared up by Maigeiy Adams at the AOC negotiations, and asked Ms. Adams to recap her explanation for the benefit of the CoundL Ms. Adams explained that EPA sees this process as a way to select a remedy that makes sense and fulfills EPA's statutory responsibilities. EPA wiU ask the PRPs to perform the studies called for in the Statement of Work developed by the Coordinating CoundL In selecting a remedy, the Coordinating Coundl wiU act by consensus with EPA as a partidpatoiy Member. EPA cannot delegate its responsibihty to the Coundl, but can act as a part of the Coundl in generating consensus. EPA wiU have to select a remedy unilateraUy if consensus cannot be reached.

Veimont Assistant Attom^ General Conrad Smith, representing the State's enforcement aim, reported that the State is committed to working the process throu^ to consensus. Mr. Smith noted that a consensus should address aU issues, some of which are of particular importance to the State. To the extent a consensus is complete, the State wiU not attempt further regulation of the site by asserting its independent authority. U however, a consensus cannot be reached that covere aU issues of concem to the State, the State wiU address remaining issues by other means.

As provided in the protocols, this summary has not been approved by the Coundl, nor ahould it be construed as repreaentiny the offidal pomtion of the Coundl or anv Member an to what tranapirad at the meetiny.

Mr. Smith added that draft language in the PRPs' aUocation agreement wiU not preclude the State from, taking any particular action. He expressed the State's concem about any Eigreement among the PRPs to withhold certain topics of conversation from CoimcU meetings. Such an agreement woiUd cause significant problems in an open process in which aU substantive issues are open to good faith negotiation.

One Member expressed discomfort discussing private negotiations in a public forum. Another Member, however, aigued that the Coundl must make sure its breadth of scope is not compromised by a PRP agreement to close some issues. A PRP Technical Committee Member assured the Coundl that the concems raised are groundless. Nonetheless, he offered to raise them at the next PRP meeting. Another Member reported that the PRP document is not finaUzed yet, but simply states that the PRPs wiU speak with one voice at the table. Still another Member suggested the PRPs make the non-financial portion of their internal agreement public.

Report of the Ecological Risk Workgroup

George Desch reported that the Ecological Risk Workgroup spent its firet meeting brainstorming, refining, and prioritizing issues. Mr. Desch explained the topics of convereation and hig^ili^ted the prioritized issues and homework assignments generated. He also touched on issues the workgroup dedded could be better answered by other woricgroups. A separate summary of the Ecological Risk Workgroup meeting is attached.

Another Ecological Woikgroup partidpant noted that the workgroup is comfortable using earthworms and possibly one or two higher trophic level organisms as indicatora of the overall health of the wetland. One of the workgroup's homework assignments is to see if there are higher trophic level organisms that could be used in this capadty. The Coundl and the community need to understand that these organisms are only evaluated as indicatora of the overaU health of the ecosystem, not as an end in themselves.

A Member reported that the studies being contemplated by the Ecological Risk Workgroup would not be completed before the faU of 1996. This Member urged the Coundl to direct the workgroups to use their professional judgement based on e^'ating data and knowledge in as many cases as possible rather than designing additional studies just for the sake of answering questions that may not make a practical difference. Another Member stressed the need to make sure any studies advocated wUl significantiy improve the CouncU's understanding of an issue. Studies with small marginal returns should not be performed.

A Member argued that since many people feel the benthic community is stressed, it may be a waste of time and money to figure out exactiy how stressed it is. This Member suggested the Council go ahead with baothic remediation plans rather than embark upon studies to assess risk to an unnecessarily detailed degree. An Ecological Risk Workgroup partidpant responded that he does not yet bdieve there is enough data to determine whether the benthic community

Aa provided in the protooola, thia sununary haa not been approved by the Coundl, nor ahould it be construed as repreaentintf t h e offidal p«ritinn nf t he Conhd l or anv Member ag to w h a t tramrpired a t t he meet ing

is stressed. This is why the Ecological Risk Workgroup advocated further study, he explainOd. Another Member uzi ed tbe Coundl to recognize the value of the work already done on the site, and pointed out that the Coundl wiU not make a decision to go ahead with any studies until the Statement of Work is completed and reviewed.

Several Coundl Menibers stressed the iinportance of generating short petition papera e9q)laining why the workgroups jfeel certain issues are not of concern. The Council wiU direct the workgroups to produce explanations for dismissal of issues of particular concem to the community.

( .

PINE STREET BARGE CANALCOORDINATING COUNCIL

AGENDA FOR MEETING OF MARCH 30-31,1994

( ^

March 30.1994

5:30 - 6:00 Administrative

> Agenda

* Meeting Summaiy

* Reportfirom the Wedges

* Report on AOC Negotiations

*• New Business

6:00 - 7.00 Protocols

7:00 - 7:30

7:30-7:46

7:45 - 9:00

Community Partidpation

Break

Report and Discussion of Fate and Transport Woikgroup

( ')

MRrcha i . 1994

5:30 - 7:15

7:15 - 7:30

Report and Discussion of Ecological Risk Workgroup

Break

7:30 - 8:45

8:45-9:00

Report and Discussion of Human Health Workgroup

Agotida for Next Meeting

1 Aa provided in the protocola, thia summary haa not been approved by the Coundl, nor should i t be construed as

reprciientinir the offidal poaitinn of the Conndl or anv Member as to vriiat transpired at the maetipy,

PINE STREET BARGE CANAL COORDINATING COUNCIL

ECOLOGICAL RISK WORKGROUP

MEETING SUMMARY — MARCH 1-2,1994

Administration

The workgroup dedded to schedule an additional set of meetings for ^ r U 14-15,1994, at Green Mountain Power, 25 Green Mountain Power Drive, South Burlington. The draft Ecological Sow wUl be due to the Coordinating Coundl on May 13,1994.

Thefiadlitator explained that the workgroup's task for this meeting is to review the list of Ekxilogical Risk issues generated by the Coordinating Coundl and the Technical Issues Workgroup. Elach issue should be placed in one of four liins," if possible —

• Not relevant

• Answered/answerable with existing data

• Relevant, but need more data

• To be addressed by another workgroup.

The "Ecological Risk" section of the general technical issues document was used as the basis for the review.

FxttowiTWA«i «ty«i% igftortw to Amiatift B<<««trt«wi The woikgTOup Conducted what amounted to a brainstorming effort to identify data gaps concerning exposure and adverse effects to aquatic receptora. One partidpant asserted that additional surface water and bedload transport (movement of stream bed sediment caused by rapid water flow) studies are needed to determine whether there is a risk to aquatic receptora in the lake. This partidpant also advocated studying the movement offish between the lake and the canal.

Another partidpant alerted the group to the existence of surface water data recorded by Alan Mcintosh during record hif^ water levels last spring and suggested that this data might address some lake water concems. The woriEgroup agreed to review this data, if available. The workgroup also agreed to seek additional infiarmation on storm water inputs, as these may be contributing to the concentration of inorganic compoimds in the water.

As provided in th» protocols, this summaiy has not been approved by the Coundl, nnr ahould it be construed as (^ rapreaentinff t he official poaition of t h e Council or anv Member aa to w h a t tranmrired a t t he meeting, '

DNAPL Mobility/Pinder Model

A partidpant explained that Professor Pinder's model is a conceptual tool that should only be used for discussion of the mobiUty of a certain type of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL). Given a set of conditions. Professor Pinder's two-dimensional model for multi-phase flow wiU predict whether DNAPL is likely to migrate, and if so in what direction. This partidpant pointed out that modelling DNAPL movement may not be relevant to this woikgroiq) or the Coordinating Coundl because many believe the Pine Street site's DNAPL is immobUe. In any event. Professor Pinder's model is not the model to use for Fate and Transport's purposes because it only deals with DNAPL.

The workgroup agreed that imdar current conditions DNAPL movement is unlikely. However, Professor Pinder's model may be of use in predicting the likelihood of DNAPL movement under future conditions. The woikgroup fiirther agreed that DNAPL mobiUty should be taken into account with respect to remediation plans.

The Effect of Natural Processes on Site Contaminants

One partidpant argued that the contaminants in the subsur£eu», which are present in concentrations h i enough to be taadc, are not being removed or neutralized by natural processes. Natural bio-degradation is more likely to take place at the groimdwater/surface water interface. The workgroup agreed that natural processes wiU not clean the site, but may manage the risk posed by the site by neutralizing the smaU escape of contaminants at the margins of tbe contaminant plume. Some partidpants believe the rate of degradation is enough to cause dynamic equilibrium at the plume margin. Othera are not convinced and woiUd like more information befhre making such a determination.

Groundwater Transport to Lake

Several partidpants maintained that current data indicates a low risk of contaminant transport to the lake via groundwatw flow. A few argued that under normal conditions groundwater flows firom the lake to the canal. Some partidpants suggested conducting biological tests to determine if there is groundwater movement fiom the site to the lake, but othere pointed out that this would only provide a snapshot of what is presentiy occurring — modelling would stiU be necessary to predict fiiture flow patterns.

A participant argued that enou^ data exists to generate estimates of flow to the lake. Flow calculations woiUd indicate whether further study is warranted. The workgroi4> asked the partidpant to pei&rm these calculations. Assuming canal level 5 feet above lake level, averageflow of groundwater throu|^ the sand lens (an area of sandy sediment more permeable than other site sediments) to the lake was detennined to be 0.3 gaUons per square foot per day. The maximum was 4.7 gaUona/square foot/day, the Tninimnm 0.006 gallons/square foot/day.

1 As provided in the protocols, this summary haa not been approved by the Coundl, nor shonid it be construed as

repreaentiniT the offidal pnaition of the Conndl or anv Member as to what transoired at the meeting.

the Fish and WUdlife Service was better equipped to perform that type of analysis.

Several participants argued that additional functional analysis work needs to be done, and the workgroup agreed. One participant explained that earthworms are often used for this sort of assessment as an indicator of the health of a wetiand. The workgroup agreed to research biomarkera or other assessment endpoints for higher trophic level organisms that could also be used as wetland system indicatora. llie workgroup wiU revisit the issue at the next meeting. Several partidpants suggested that the Coordinating CouncU conduct an educational effort as part of its community outreach program to make sure people underatand tbe use of lower trophic level organisms as indicatora of the health of the overaU system.

K«pftgMfWA«lw«M-> KfBBcfai to TerrcBtrial Rttcantorw. A partidpant reported that the Human Health Workgroup had not reached consensus on whether additional upland soU sampling is necessary. Another noted that the conservative risk assessment i>erfi}rmed in the past fbimd no risk in the upland areas of the site. This participant argued that additional soU sampling on the uplands is unnecessaiy except for an area called the landing pad," which is considered a hot spot and may be located in the uplands. The workgroup agreed, with the exception of one partidpant who asked to look at maps of the site before agreeing that additional testing is unnecessary.

Weight tiff Bvidfillfifr A participant argued that it is almost impossible to show specific contaminants producing a measured effect on an ecosystem, but that the wdght of evidence approach can show increasing impact with increasing concentrations of contaminants. The workgroup agreed that the wdght of evidence method should be used.

Mcthodq ftf l«;YM,limfci«>w llie workgroup agreed that this is not a fi-ee-standing issue. AU methods identified in item n D of the Technical Issues document wUl be used in an integrated fashion.

Mi-rtmnHi One partidpant mentioned the possibility of performing a Toxics Identification Evaluation (TIE) on the mixture of contaminants at the site. This type of evaluation is extremely dif&cult, but if successful could save money during remediation since remediation goals almost always focus on reducing the concentrations of spedfic contaminants rather than the mixture as a whole. However, several partidpants pointed out that it is not possible to identify the specify compounds that are causing ecological problems, and that significant uncertainties would remain even if a TIE were performed. The workgroup agreed that the information provided by a TIE m i ^ t be useful in some instances, but would be difBcult to obtain. The issue wiU be revisited at future meetings if necessary.

A partidpant reported that the Coordinating Coimdl woiUd like to know whether the site is healing itself The workgroup agreed that 1±is issue should be considered by the Fate and Transport Workgroup.

Rgfercncip Sites. A participant commented that the reference site used in the original

As provided in the pntoeols, this summary has not been approved by the CouncQ, nor afaonld it be construed as > rapreiiiantiny the offidal position of the Coundl or any Member as to what tranmired at the Ttieeting­

risk assessment, Mallet's Creek, is not appropriate because it is not located in an urban area and is not aquaticaUy similar to the Pine Street site. Othera argued further that there are no useable reference sites outside Pine Street itself The workgroup agreed to try to find intemal reference sites — areas of the Pine Street site that are unaffected by contaminants and can be used for comparisons to the areas that are contaminated. If no such areas can be found, the workgroup wiU revisit the issue.

^iMgBinngntTgwHpmnta A partidpant reminded the workgroup that the endpoints used in the original risk assessment were chosen for acute effects rather than chronic effects. One partidpant suggested that sub-lethal effects are a good assessment endpoint, and that he would focus oh bd3tbic organisms and fish. Another airgued that benthic tests should indude toxidty tests and survey work. These coiUd be done in a tiered, phased approach.

One particqnnt suggested the woikgroup investigate the amount Of biomass that could be supported by the food a^railable in the canal. A partidpant noted that the Human Health Workgroup had questioned the canal's abUity to produce enou^ fish to pose a chronic human health risk, and asked the Ecological Workgroup to address the issue. Some argued that there is no way the canal could be a productive fishery, and that a workgroup member should write a short piece estimating the canal's possible productivity. Othere, however, noted that initial surveys have shown the canal might be used as a nursery, and maintained that it could be extremely productive for fish.

One partidpant proposed determining how many fish would need to be consumed in order to pose a htmian health risk Tbe workgroup would then determine whether there are enough fish in the canal to pose a threat. Othera, however, suggested the workgroup focus on the biomass question firet — if there are relatively few fish in the canal, it wiU be impossible to accumulate enough contaminants through consumption to pose a threat

A partidpant suggested the groi;q) determine which fish use the canal and how they use i t An examxnatum of the fiaheiy should indude a residence study in addition to the identification of present species. Ihe study poiUd alsO measure dissolved oxygen and determine whether the canal everfiieezes solid, producing a total kill The workgroup lUtimately agreed that a fishery survey woiUd likely answer the Human Health group's question.

A partidpant aigued that good endpoints would be a reduction in potential toxidty and the broader question of whether the wetland hais the characteristics one would expect to find if the site werefimrtinm'ng noimally. Another partidpant argued that toxidty is more implortant and more easily assessed at this site than cardnogemdty. Though othera agreed that toxidty is a greater concern, some refused to dismiss carcinogenicity as a consideration.

One partidpant suggested examining the food web integrity at the site. Most agreed, however, that a body burden study is unnecessary. The workgroup agreed to consider the use of biomarkers.

As provided in the protocols, this summary has not been approved by the Coundl, nor should it be construed as rpprpaenting t he offidal poaition of t he Connd l or any Member aa to wha t trBnapimd a t the meeting

Prioriti«atiftTi The workgroup made an attempt to prioritize the data gaps it would Uke filled. One partidpant urged the group to keep in mind the (Coordinating CToundl's criteria that studies be completed in a relatively short period of time, cost-effectivdy, and without disturbing buried contaminants. The workgroup's priorities are —

• Further characterize shaUow soils and sediments (0-2') in the aquatic and wetland portions of the site, induding the wooded wetlands in the southem and western areas. Also gygminp water column and sediment chemistry in these areas, including the 'landing pad;"

• Benthic survey of canal and emergent wetiands;

« Phased laboratoiy and/or in situ bioassays and toxidty tests (order of phases to be determined);

• Ask Fate and Transport Workgroiq) to evaluate the water balance of the canal and what is transported;

• Fish survey—population and migration; evaluationsfin* eco and health;

• Functional analjrsis/habitat evaluation; and,

• Update Uterature survey.

The workgroiq) agreed that these studies could probably be completed by the faU of 1996. A partidpant noted the likelihood that several of the studies wiU be incondusive. If this turns out to be the case, the workgroup wiU have to dther design further studies or rely on its best collective judgement to make recommendations. Several partidpants urged the workgroup to rely on its sdentific judgement as much as possible now, rather thanrfft«igm>g a series of studies which may not provide definitive answera.

Homework- The woikgroup identified a list of homewoik items to be completed in advance of the next meeting —

• Think about artificial substrates;

• Discuss proper sampling techniques with fisheries experts

» population evaluation

*• desk top, field study needs

• Wetlands

- which spedes need to be examined?

\7 Asprovidedintheprotocols, this summaiy has not been approved by the Coundl, nor should i t be construed as (

reoreaentiny the offidal poaition of the Conndl or anv Member as to what tranapired at the meeting. ^

» which biomarkera are appropriate for higher trophic levels or other measurement endpoints?

• A.Q. — report back on urban runoff study (prelim)

• UVM^tate Lab—mouth of canal data

« Toxics Identificatiou Evaluation (TIE) — discuss methodology

> conelation of earthworm mortaUty to [C(X?] » use chemical characterization to guide targeting toxidty data *• effects on remediation; evaluation of remediation and implementation

Alan Mcintosh informed the workgroup that his report has been approved and wUl be pubUc immediately. State of Vermont storm water information should be available in approximately 3 months. The Johnson Company information wiU also be available very soon.

(

L_

\3 As provided in the protocola. thia summary haa not been approved by the Conncil, nor should it be construed as

repreaenting the offidal pniprinn nf the Conndl or anv Member aa to what tranapired at the meetiny

Ecological Risk Workgroup Participants

Dave Burmaster Alceon Corporation PO Box 2669 Harvard Square Station Cambridge, MA 02238-2669

Clarence A. Callahan EPA Region IX

KenCarr U.S. Fish & ^ mdUfe Serrice/DOI Suite 400 Ralph PiU Marketplace 22 Bridge S t Concord, NH 03301-4901

Susan Compton (Sty of Burlington McNdl & Murray 271 S. Union S t Buriington, VT 05401

Chris CrandeU The Johnson Company 5 State S t MontpeUer, VT 05602

George Desch VTDEC 103 S. Main St , West Building Waterbury, VT 05671-0404

Sheila Eckman EPA Waste Management Division HPS-1 JFK Federal BuUding Boston. MA 02203-2211

Danid Finkelstein FaciUtator Suite 404 2301 M St , NW Washington, DC 20037

617-864-4300 x222 617-864-9954 FAX

415-744-2314 415-744-1916 FAX

603-225-1411 603-225-1467 FAX

802-863-4531 802-863-1743 FAX

802-229-4600 802-229-5876 FAX

802-241-3888 802-244-5141 FAX

617-573-5784 617-573-9662 FAX

202-887-1038 202-887-1036 FAX

i . ^

As provided in the protocols, this summary has not been approved by the Council, nor should it be construed as repreaentiny the offidal poaition of the Conndl or anv Member as to what trananirBd at the meeting.

PhUip J. Harter FaciUtator Suite 404 2301 M St, NW Washington, DC 20037

DougHoffer Burlington Board of Health 161 Austm Dr. #71 BurUngton, VT 05401

Gregory B. Johnson 1 Johnson (Company 5 State S t MontpeUer, VT 05602

BiU Kappleman Metcalf & Eddy

GaiylQeUeren Martin Marietta 128 Lakeside Ave. Burlington, VT 05401

RebekahLacey 219 Aiken Bldg. Univeraity of Vermont BurUngton, VT 05401

Alan Mcintosh UVM-LCC 1 Pierson Dr. Shelbume, VT 05482

A l a n Qiiarlcp'n'hiiaTi

VTDEC 103 South Mam S t Waterbury, VT 05676

Sonja Schyler The Johnson (Company 5 State S t MontpeUer, VT 05602

202-887-1033 202-887-1036 FAX

802-864-5711

802-229-4600 802-229-5876 FAX

617-246-5200

802-657-6876 802-657-6292 FAX

802-656-4057 802-656-8683 FAX

802-244-4520

802-229-4600 802-229-5876 FAX

p As provided in the protocola. thia aummary haa not been approved by the Coundl, nor ahould it be conatrued as

repreaenting the offidal poaitinn nf t h e Conneil or a n v Member aa to wha t trananirwi a t t he meet ing

Susan SvirskyEPA Region I JFK Federal BuUding Boston, MA 02203-2211

John M. TealEEA/WHOI13 Marconi Ln.Marion, MA 02738

Maiy WatzinUVM-LCC

617-573-9649

508-748-3224 508-748-9740 FAX

508-457-2000 x2323 (Woods Hole) 508-457-2169 FAX (Woods Hole)

802-656-4057 802-656-8683 FAX

l Aa provided in the protooola, thia aummary haa not been approved by the Coundl, nor ahould it be construed aa

rppreaenting t h e offirial poaition of t he Cound l or anv Member aa to wha t tranapired a t t he meet ing

PINE STREET BARGE CANAL COORDINATING COUNCIL

FATE AND TRANSPORT WORKGROUP

MEETING SUMBAARY — MARCH 3-4.1994

Issnes RefSerred From Ecological Risk Woricgroup

Susan Svirsly summarized tbe proceedings of the Ecological Risk Woikgroiqi at its March 1-2,1994 meeting. Ms. Svirsky reviewed a list of prioritized issues generated hy the Ecological Risk Workgroup and noted that the workgroup referred a series of issues to the Fate and Transport Workgroup for consideration. Those issues are —

• Disti'ngin'shing coal tar contaminantsfirom other PAHs

• Bedload transport (movement of stream bed sediment caused hy rapid water flow)

• Depositional/erosional scenarios

• Migration of sediments, surfiace water, and biota to/fiom the lake

• Identification of particular contaminants in the mix

• Potential for PAH analytical problems, limits.

Olgectives

A participant argued that otiier workgroups are responsible for determining whether contaminants leaving tfae site "may unduly adverse^ impact himtian health or the environment, therdby requiring a remedial response." He suggested ddeting this clausefirom Contaminant Fate and Transport ohjective Al, whidi also directs the workgroup to "reevaluate the pathways air, groundwater, surface water, sediment fish consumption and determine if JAGP contaminants are leaving the site." The woikgroup agreed.

Another partic4)ant urged the woikgroiq) to consider PAH loadings &om. storm sewera and other sources. This partidpant argued that the site is a PAH sink rather than a source, and suggested the workgroup find out for sure. The workgroup agreed to insert this issue into the technical questions/issues discussion.

V

I? As provided in the protocols, this aummary has not been approved by the Coundl, nor ahould it be construed as (^

Ttmreaentiny t h e offirial pnaition of t he C o u n d l or anv Member aa to w h a t t ranapirad a t t he meetiny:

Another participant mentioned that calculations done in preparation for the Fate and Transport Workgroup meetings indicate a 1() year storm event would not generate adequate flow si>eeds in the canal to initiate bedload transport The workgroup agreed to ask the Fate and Transport Workgroup to address the bedload transport issue.

One participant argued that the woikgroup needs a better picture of the chemical makeup of the shaUow sediments in the canal. Otiiera agreed, and added that a detaUed exaniination of the vertical distribution of contaminants by depth would fiU an important data gap. The workgroup agreed that this infonnation could be generated by drilling sediment cores. Another partidpant noted that benthic studies must be correlated to the chemistry of a site, and suggested that the coring, benthic study, and toxidty tests be done at the same time. The workgroup agreed to consider specific testing methods at a later date.

One partidpant expressed concem that the top layera of canal sediment could be scoured, exposing lower layera. Othera, however, maintained that the canal is a depositional rather than an erosional environment They argued that this is an important data gap to fiU. The workgroup agreed to ask the Fate and Transport Workgroup to determine whether the canal is a depositional or erosional environment

A partidpaiit suggested accumulating more information on the sub-lethal effects of contaminants onfish, especiaUy those in the canal. Some agreed, but one maintained that tbe workgroup should determine that the canal fish community is impaired before embarking on this type of study. Another argued that the workgroup would have to £aU back on other indicatora and the wei^^t of evidence approach, and recommended using histo-pathology.

A partidpant pointed out that a data gap exists on effects to spedes that are not technicaUy "aquatic," but use the aquatic environment. Avian spedes, for example, may utilize moUusks, which do not metaboUze PAHs, as a primaiy food source. The workgroup agreed to think about direct and fbod web exposures to avian and amphibian spedes for the next meeting.

Several partidpants noted that the Human Health Workgroup wants to know what contaminants the Ecological Risk Workgroup plans to look for in fish tissue.

ii;T7WMnitWA.i r<>iHM. BfBiM^ to W<*tlati«l w^w^pf^ii- Various partidpants eiqpressed concerns about the emergent and forested wetlands on the site. Though the emergent wetlands appear to be a greater concern, there is Uttle data on the forested wetlands. Several partidpants recommended simultaneous toxidty and chemical testing in the southem and western portions of the site, possibly on frogs and earthworms. Othera advocated a phased approach to testing, and tiie workgroup eventuaUy agreed that some sort of phaising is appropriate. The woirkgroup conducted a lengthy discussion of specific testing methods and decided to revisit the issue at the next meeting.

EPA explained that it conducted a functional analysis of the wetland using the WET n method. A Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) would have been done as weU, but EPA dedded

, /

As provided in the protocols, this summaiy haa not been approved by the Conndl, nor ahould i t be construed aa repreaentiny the offidal poaition of the Conndl or anv Member as to what tranapired at the meeting

Based on these numbera, even tbe worst case scenario would result in very Uttie movement of BTX, the most mobUe site contaminants, to the lake through the sand lens. The workgroup agreed that there appeara to be Uttie risk of significant contaminant transport to the lake throu^ tbe sand lens, but dedded to review existing weU data before dismissing the issue. Any partidpants who beUeve additional groundwater sampling is necessary should suggest a new weU location at the next meeting.

Groundwater Transport to Canal

The workgroup agreed that it needs more data to evaluate the presence and composition of Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) near the canaL A fow samples should be sufBcient for workgroup purposes.

A partidpant asked whether DNAPL exists in the canal, how it gets to the dissolved state, what the rate of exchange is at the interfkce, and the rate of release of DNAPL into the water column of the canal. Several partidpants responded that the rate of release to the canal is minimal because the DNAPL in the area is extremely weathered and viscous. Other partidpants explained that it is extremely difficult if not imi)088ible to get usefiU results fiiom water sampling at the interface. They suggested a study of canal sur&ce sediment chemistry would be more informative. Hie workgroup agreed to sample for DNAPL in the canal's top layera of sediment rather than in the water column.

Efifects of Future Land Use on Groundwater Transport

The workgroup agreed that development on the uplands adjacent to Pine Street, induding construction of a highway, is not likefy to affect groundwater flow significantiy. The doser hypothetical construction moves to the canal, however, the less certain the workgroup is of Tviininnil eflfects OU groundwater flow. Insertion of a pumping weU near the wetiand could affect groundwater flow.

Industrial Use of Groundwater

A partidpant estimated that a maximum of 40 gallons of water per minute could be drawn firom the shallow aqui&r through the sand lens for industrial use. The workgroup agreed that there is enou^ groimdwater in the shaUow aquifer for industrial use, but added that the realistic probabiUty of its being used is low because much greater yidds are readUy avaUable firom the deeper bedrock aquifer.

A partidpant explained that any water removed firom the shaUow aquifer wovdd have to go throu^ the State permitting process. The issue of exposure to workera would be raised in relation to an Act 250 or discharge permit Since the shaUow aquifer is a Class FV non-potable

I

1- r

As provided in the protoools, this summary haa not been approved by the Conndl, nor ahould it be conatrued aarPTirwientiny t he offidal poaitinn of t h e C o u n d l or a n v Member aa to w h a t tranapinari a t the maet iny

water source, sampling would be required before the water could be removed. The workgroup asked this partidpant to explain the permitting process to the Human Health Workgroup.

A partidpant expressed concem about the potential for contaminant migration to the bedrock aquifor, which contains plenty of removable water and is currentiy used for industrial purposes. Another partidpant explained that contaminants could theoreticaUy reach the bedrock aqui&r in 1 of 2 ways — by moving in their present state, or by dissolving into groimdwater that eventuaUy entere the aqui&r. There is no indication, however, that the DNAPL is moving. In addition, the current hydrauUc gradient does not result in a downward flow of groundwater. Even if the hydrauUc gradient were to change, movement to the bedrock aqui&r would be imlikdy because the aquifer is isolated by a 40-100 foot clay/sUt unit which retards groundwater movement

Most of the woikgroiq) agreed that groundwater movement of contaminants to the bedrock aquifer is extremely unlikely. A &w partidpants, however, argued that fiirther study is necessary before this determination can be made. A partidpant suggested developing preliminary e^iosure scenarios and risk assumptions to perfoim human health risk calculations. If the worat case scenario presents no risk to human health, the issue can be dropped.

Contaminant Fingerprinting^Attrilmtion

Several partidpants asserted that the fingerprinting performed to this point is not suffident to determine that contaminants firom the canal have reached the lake. It is very dif&cult to positively identify specific coal tar wastes because of weathering and the presence of similar wastes neaiiQr. These paitidpants feel the methods used to determine the extent of coal tar contamination are not reliable. Another participant explained that under statute, the dte includes aU pieces of property that contain site wastes. This partidpant suggested that it is in the best interests of tlie PRPs to use fingerprinting to bound the site rather than property boundaries. "Hie burden is on the PRPs to show that any contaminants found are not firom the site.

It became dear that there are disputed areas aroimd the edges of the site where it is not clear which contaminants are coal tar contaminants and which are not A partidpant suggested that each grotqi mark the areas it believes contain coal tar contaminants and develop a plan to find out for sure. The maps and plans could be compared at the next meeting. Another partidpant suggested the workgroup consult leading chemists to see if there are other Twet'T'' of determining the boundaries of site contaminants.

Surface Water Transport

Hie workgroup agreed that there is not adequate information on surfeure water transport Several partidpants suggested measuring the net movement of suriace water into and out of

7 As provided in the protooola, thia summary has not been approved by the Councfl, nor should it be construed as

rpprpaanting t h e offirial poaitinn of t he Cound l or anv Member aa to w h a t trananimH a t t he meeting. '

the canal. Such a study would likely measure movement between the canal and the lake, as weU as input fiom storm sewere, rain, runoff, and cooling water discharge finom Martin Marietta. The study could also measure bedload transport and movement Of contaminants.

Emulsions

A partidi>ant suggested the workgroup avdd classifying the coal tar wastes exdusively as DNAPL or LNAPL since some emulsions have been encountered. Tbe workgroup agreed an emiUsion would likely be mOre niobUe than DNAPL but less mobUe than LNAPL. Since it is difficult to test emulsions in situ, a partidpant suggested the workgroup check the Uterature for studies of emulsion mobiUty.

Other partidpants, however, argued that emulsions are likely to migrate only if the sediments in whidi they reside are compressed. Since compression would also cause migration of DNAPL and LNAPL, the presence of emulsions is largdy irrelevaint—compressed product wiU move regardless of whether it is separated or not. These partidpants maintained that studying the comppdtion of an emulsion is not necessary for an understanding of &ctora likdy. to cause product transport The workgroup agreed that the presence of emulsions is only relevant to the evaluation of pix)duct movement once distuibed.

Hydrology

A parta'dpant asked the workgroup to consider the hydrology of the wetland in relation to remediation options. Some argued that the wetland is fbd primarily by groundwater, but othera disagreed. The workgroup dedded to review existing data to determine how the wetland is sustained.

A participant asked whether recontamination can be expected if a permeable sediment layer is deposited above the contaminants. The workgroup agreed to examine the results at Maltex Pond, where this was done.

Ambient Air

A partidpant reported that the Human Health Workgroup agreed there is Uttle risk from ambient air exposure, but is exploring the flux box method of mnnifnring to make sure. Several partidpants noted that it is difficult to use fliix boxes in a wetland. The workgroup agreed that there is no risk firom ambient air exposure and no need to study the issue further.

7 Aa provided in the protocola, thia aummary has not been approved by the Conndl, nor shonid it be construed as

repnaaenting the offirial pnaition of the Coundl or anv Member as to what tranapirBd at the meetiny

Contamination East of the Railroad Tracks and West of the Canal

The workgroup agreed that the areas east of the railroad tracks and west of the <^nal should be considered for sampling. If groundwater sampling is necessary, it wiU be done between the railroad tracks and Lakeshore. An LNAPL investigation would indude both sides of the canal. In addition, chemical and biological aspects of surfidal sediments would be examined on both sides of the canaL Partidpants shoiUd review existing monitoring data firom west of the canal before the next meeting.

^

As provided in the protoools, this summaiy has not been approved by the Councfl, nor should it be construed as repreaentjny t he offidal nnairinn nf t h e Connril or ah v Member aa to w h a t trananirad a t t h e meeting.

FATE & TRANSPORT WORKGROUP PARTICIPANTS

Steve Acree US EPA/R.S. Kerr Research Lab

Michael G Barsotti CHiamplain Water I^tr ict 403 Queen City Park Rd. S. BurUngton, VT 05403

Dave Burmaster Alceon Corporatian POBox2669 Harvard Square Station Cambridge, MA 02238-2669

Susan C^ompton City of Buriington MdfeU& Murray 271S. Union S t BurUngton, VT 05401

Stan Comeille VTDEC 103 South Main S t Waterbuiy, VT 05676

ChrisCrandeU The Johnson Company 5 State S t MontpeUer, V t 05602

EPA Waste Management Division HPS-1 JFK Federal BuUdmg Boston, MA 02203-^11

Danid Finkelstein FaciUtator Suite 404 2301 M St , NW Washington, DC 20037

PhiUp J. Harter

405-436-8609

802-864-7454

617-864-4300 x222 617-864-9954 FAX

802-863-4531 802-863-1743 FAX

802-244-5141 FAX

802-229-4600 802-229-5876 FAX

617-573-5784 617-573-9662 FAX

202-887-1038 202-887-1036 FAX

202-887-1033

?^ Aa provided in the protooiolB, this sninmazy has not been approved by the Councfl, nor should it be constmad as

r>r«»a»ntiny t he offirial poaiticin of t h e Cannon nr any Member aa to w h a t t rananired a t t h e meet ing

FadUtatOr Suite 404 2301M St, NW Washington, DC 20037

Nancy Hayden UVM/LCC 213 BVotey BuUding Buriington, VT 05405-0156

DougHoffer Buriihgton Board of Health 161 Austin Dr. #71 Burhngton, VT 05401

Forest Lyford USGiS

Alan Mcintosh UVM-LCC 1 Pierson Dr. Shelbume, VT 05482

JackMcKenna Metcalf & Eddy

SethPitkin The JohnsOn Company 5 State S t MontpeUer, VT 05602

Alati Qiiflfflcanhiigti

VTDEC 103 South Main S t Waterbuiy, VT 05676

Michad B. Smith VT ANR, Hazardous Materials 103 South Main St , West BuUding Waterbuiy, VT 05671-0404

Susan Svirsl^ EPA Region I JFK Federal BuUdmg

202-887-1036 FAX

802-656-1924 802-656-8446 FAX

802-864-5711

508-490-5024

802-656-4057 802-656-8683 FAX

617-246-5200

802-229-4600 802-229-5876 FAX

802-244-4520

802^241-3888 802-244-5141 FAX

617-573-9649

8

/f As provided in the protocols, this summaiy has not been approved by the Coundl, nor should it be construed as

reoreaentiny the offirial pnaition of the Conndl or anv Member as to what trananirBd at the meeting.

Boston, MA 02203-2211

John M. Teal 508-748-3224 EEA/WHOI 508-748-9740 FAX 13 Marconi Ln. 508-457-2000 x2323 (Woods Hole) Marion, MA 02738 508-457-2169 FAX (Woods Hole)

Richaiti WUley 617-573-9639 US EPA Region I

12866

/ / ­

Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 41 / Wednesday. March 2, 1994 / NoUces 9 9 8 3

Compliance With Executive Order

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866.

Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this approval will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. It does not impose any new burdens on small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Authority: This notice is issued under the authority of section 4005 pf the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amraded: 42 U.S.C. 6946.

Dated: Febniajy 18.1994. loba H. HankiiiMa, Jr., Pegional Administrator. IFR Doc 94-4759 Filed 3-1-94: 8:45 am) aiujHa coot SSM-SO-P

[Fm.-4841-e]

Meeting: Clean Air Act Advisory

ACTION: Qean Air Act Advisory Committee Notice of Meeting.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the Qean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) on November 19,1990 to provide independent advice and counsel to EPA on policy issues associated with the implementation of the Dean Air Act of 1990. Thia charter for the CAAAC was reissued and the Committee was authorized to be extended until November 19,1994 under regulations established by the Federal Ad viisory Committee Act (FACA).

On August 4.1993 EPA requested nominations for new members to the committee. In Februaiy 1994 all hew and reappointed members of the Qean Air Act .^dviso^y Committee were contacted and informed of their selection. The membersihip of the Committee represents a balance of interested persons with diverse perspectives and professional qualifications and experience to coniribute to the functions of the .\dvisory Com.Tiittee. Members were drawn from: business and industry; academic institutions: state and local governmental bodies; environmenlal and nongovernmental organizations; unions and service groups.

Fifty-two individuals were selected to participate as members of the CAAAC The Advisory Committee will be authorized to form subcommittees to

consider specific issues or actions and report back to the Conunittee.

Open Meeting Notice: Notice is hereby given that the reauthorized Qean Air Act Advisory Committee will hold its initial open meeting on March 29,1994 from 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., at the Washington Renaissance Hotel, 999 dth Street, NW. in Washington, DC Seating will be available on a first come, first served basis.

Tbe CAAAC was established to advise EPA on the development, impleihentation. and enforcement bf the new and expanded regulatory and market-based programs required by the Gean Air Act of 1990. At this initial meeting, the Committee will highlight

. implementation priorities for the next year, consider poteiitial sub-committee formation, and; rtaceive a report from the existing New Source Review Sub­coramitteia.

Inspection of Coinmittee Dociunents: Documents relating to the above noted topics will.be publicly availabie at the meeting. Thereafter, these documents, together with the CAAAC meeting minutes will be available for public inspection in EPA Air Docket Number A-90^39 in Room 1500 of EPA Headquarters. 401 M Street. SW., Washington, DC

For further information concerning this meeting of the CAAAC please contact Karen Smith, OfRce of Air and Radiation. US EPA (202) 260-6379. FAX (202) 260-5155, or by mail at US EPA. O ^ c e of Air and Radiation (Mail Code 6101). Washington, DC 20460.

Dated: Februaiy 24.1994. AnaE-Goode, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

IFR Doc 94-4758 Filed 3-1-94:8:45 ami nn 19n coot MUO DO r

[Fm.-4644-ll

Notice of Schedule ot Meetings of the Pine Street Canal Superfund Site Coordinating Council

In accordance with the objectives of section 117 of the Comprehensi-.'e Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). 42 U.S.C. 9617. the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a community workinggroup known as the Coordinating Coundl at the Pine Street Canal Superfund Site, in Burlington. Vermont. The Coordinating Council is comprised of representatives from EPA. the Verrripnt Department of Environmental Conservation, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Lake Champlain Committee, the Qty of

Burlington. Vermoiit. entities which have been identified as potentially responsible parties under section 107 of CERCLA, and citizen representatives.

The Coordinating Council is currently developing a scope of work for further remedial investigation/feasibility studies for the Pine Street Canal Superfund Site. This notice provides the

. public with notice of the meetings of the Coordinating CounciL The meetings of the Coordinating Coundl are held at locations in Burlington, Vennont, and are open to the public

Meetings of the Coordinating Council have been scheduled for the following dates: February 27.1994—5:30 pjn.-9 p.m. March 2,1994—5:30 p.m.-9 p.m. March 3.1994—5:30 p.m.-9 p.m. March 31/1994—5:30 p.m.-9 p.m. April 21,1994—5:30 p.m.-9 p.m. May 18,1994-^5:30 p.m.-g p.m. May 19,1994—5:30 p.m.-9 p.m. June 8.1994—5 JO p.m.-S p.m. June 9.1994—5:30 p.m.-9 p.m. June 28,1994—5:30 p.m.-4 p.m. June 29, 1994—5:30 pjn.-fl p.m. July 13,1994—5:30 p.m.-3 p.m. July 14,1994—5:30 p.in.-9 p.m.

Persons wishing further information concerning the locations of meetings of the Coordinating Coundl, updateis concerning the scheduling of meetings of the Coordinating Coundl, and meeting summary reports, should coniact Ross Gilleland. Remedial Project Manager. EPA Region I. JFK Federal Building (Mail Code HPS-CANl). Boston. MA 02203, telephone (617) 573-5766. or Sheila Eckinan, Remedial Project Manager. EPA Region L JFK Federal Building (Mail Code HPS-CANl). Boston. MA 02203, telephone (617) 573-5874.

Oeted: February 18.1994. Harley Laing, Acting Beponal Administrator. IFR Doc. 94-4756 Filed 3-1-94; 8:45 ami BtLUNO cooc uao-ao-p

[FRL «a« Z]

Revised Hours of Operation for Public Access to ttte Headquarters Library and INFOTERRA

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that beginning Decerrit)er 15.1993. the Headquarters Library and INFOTERR.^ will be open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday (excluding Federal holidoys). This constitutes a reduction in hours of operation.