SDMS DocID 459010

SU'PERFU.'iD RECORDS CTR PHILIP J. HARTER

SUITE 404

2301M STREET, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20037

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

April 8,1994

M E M O R A N D U M

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

Fr: PhiUp J. Harter, Daniel FinkelsteinM^ Facilitators o/V^

Re: Council Meeting of April 19 and 21; Workgroup Meetings April 14-15 and 19-21; Summaries of Previous Coundl and Workgroup Meetings

The Coordinating Coundl is next scheduled to meetfirom 5i30 to 9HX> pjn^ April 19 and 21,1994, at Bnrijngton Electric Department, 585 Pine Street. On the 19th Greorge Pinder will make a presentation to the Council on his model &r the mobility of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase liquid. This will befoUpwed IQT a reportfirom the Fate and Transport Workgroup. The Council will also meet on the 21st to discuss a misaon statement preparedfay the City, hear reportsfirom the Huinan Health and Ecological Itisk Workgroups, and finalize the protocols. The latest iteration of the protocols is attaJched; please review it carefully so we can reach dosure on the 21st

The Ecobgical Risk Workgroup will meet April 14th from lOKX) aJn. to 5:00 p.m^ and April 15th from 9K)d a.m. to 4KX> p.ni. at Green Mountain Power, 25 Green Mountain Power Drive, South Burlington.

llie Fate and'Tranqport Worii;groi9 wiU meetfirom lOKW ajin. to 5K)0 pan. on ^ and from 9:00 ajn. to 12:00 pan. on ^ r i l 20th at GMP.

The Human Health Workgroup wUl meetfirom liOO pan. to 5HX> pan. April 20th, and from 9K)0 a.m. to 5:00 pan. April 21st, also at GMP.

V Y PINE STREET BARGE CANAL COORDINATING COUNCIL

AGENDA FOR MEETING OF MARCH 19 AND 21,1994

Anri l l9 .1994

5:30 • 5:45 Administrative Matters

• Agenda

>• Meeting Summaries

*• Report fiom the Wedges

• Report on AOC Negotiations

» New Business

5:45-7:30 Presentation fay Creorge Pinder

7:30-7:45 Break

7:45-9:00 Fate and Transport Workgroup Report

March 21,1»4

5:30-6:00 Review of City Mission Statement

6:00-6:30 Protocols

6:30-7:30 Himian Health Workgroup Report

7:30-7:45 Break

7:45-8:45 Ecological Risk Workgroup Report

8:45-9:00 Agendafixr Noct Meeting

As provided in the protocols, this summary has not been approved by the Council, nor should it be construed as representing the ofBcial position of the Council or any Meir>«r as ta what transpired at the meeting.

PINE STREET BARGE CANAL COORDINATING COUNCIL

MEETING SUMMARY MARCH 30,1994

Reports From the Wedges

Susan Comptonreported that the City has been preparing a mission statement concerning the Barge Canal highway and wetlands issues. The mission statement should be ready for discussion at the next Coordinating Council ineeting.

BiU Howland reported that the Lake Champlain Committee developed a "Draft Vision for Future Barge Canal Site Quality" at a meeting of its Board of Directors and caucus members. LCC would like the Coixodl tO keep thesefioal endpoints in mind as the process continues. Ms, Compton noted that the City is preparing a similar endpoint Ust.

SOW Drafting

One Member argued that the drafters of the SOWs need to have some leeway in crafting specific language. Another, however, maintained that the diaft SOWs should only contain items expUcitiy cbcplained and disdissed at the workgroup meetings. The facilitator eaplained that any paper written to capture a series of meeting discussions will necessarily contain some new language, and pointed Out that both the Ecobgical Risk and Human Health draft SOWs did just that.

Several Members suggested that the draft SOWs be distributed only to workgroup partidpants. The Coundl agreed.

Protocols

Mai^iy AdiEuns reported that sl^ and Sheri Larsen met to discuss the protocols and developed anotiier iteration, which she distributed. Ms. Adams alerted the Coundl to a wording change in the EPA responsiheUily and intent section, but noted that the change has little practical effect Tfaie goal statement was also edited to reflect the Council's continuing role through the recommehdatioh of a remedy. Several partidpants noted tfaie importance of the Council's input on risk inajoagemeht decisions.

Conrad Smith suggested adding a refierence to the State's statutory responsibilities. The Coundl agreed. Mr. Smith also suoted that he cannot yet agree to the provision limiting future use Of all information generatedfor this process. Mr. Smith will discuss this provision with his wedge and report back at the next meeting.

A few Members questioned the requirement that signatories of an agreement be "duly"

As provided in the protocols, this summaiy has not been approved by the Council, nor should it be construed as representing the oflicial position of the Council or anv Merot»r as to what transpired at the meeting.

authorized to sign on behalf of their organization. The Council agreed instead to require that those signing an agreement be "appropriately" authorized to do so. These and several other wordsmithing changes agreed to are reflected in the next iteration of the protocols, attached.

Initiation of Studies

Doug HofTer distributed a letter he sent to the facilitator suggesting the Council attempt to conduct the initial phases of some studies this field season rather than waiting xmtil 1995. He argued that it is im|portant for the Council to do all in its power to hasten the process. Several Members agreed, and suggested the workgroups try tO identify studies to be performed this summer that could either eliminate the need for additional studies or generate information that would help tailor future studies.

Another Member noted that the Administrative Order of Consent should be completed in time for studies to begin this summer, but raised concems about pursuing studies in a piece­meal fashion. This Member cautioned that it hiay be difficult to satisfy quality assurance reqiiirements quickly.

Community Participation

Lori Fisher reported that a progress update was distributed and numerous responses were received. Ms. Fisher maintained tfaiat this verifies the cominunity's continued interest in the Coundl and its activities. Another progress update will be isent out in the nextfew months.

John Akey noted that Channel 17, which recorded the meeting, will air portions of the meeting at its discretion. Copies of the recording will be purchased and stored in public hbraries.

Fate and Transport Workgroup Report

Seth Pitkin reviewed the disdission topics of the March 3-4,1994, Fate and Transport Woikgroiq) meeting. AmoDg other things, Mr. Pitkin reported that the Workgroup had agreed there is nO riskfirom air emissions at the site. One partidpiant disagreed, and explained that her representative at the Fate and Transport mieeting doesnot consider the issue resolved. Several Members present at the Workgroup meeting noted that they believed agreement had infoct been reiached. These Members stressed the importance of voicing concems promptiy so these types nfTnig^mHttrgfandinga can be avoided in the future.

One partidpant noted that aiihome emissionsfiiom the site is a nug'or community concern, and raised the possifa|ility of performing a study even if the technical experts agree there is no risk. Several Meniberis responded that the Coundl and the Workgroups will lose all credibility if they perform studies which they believe have no tedmical merit They agreed that all

As provided in the protocols, this summaiy has not been approved by the Council, nor should it be construed as representing the oflicial position of the Councilor any Member as to what transpired at the mieeting.

community concems need to be answered, but asserted that some answers must come in the form of assurance firom the various groups of experts that certain issues are not of concem.

A Member reminded the Coundl that EPA's previous finding that there is no riskfix>m air emissions was met with criticism from the community. Another Member, however, pointed out that the community is more likely to have confidence in a consensus determination by the various groups of experts that there is no risk than the opinion of any single group.

Another participant added that the Workgroup had discussed whether the canal is a depositional or erosional environment. This partidpant beheves the canal is an area of deposition, and suggested monitoring the storm sewers that empty into the site to determine for sure. Whether Or not the canal is a depositional environment will have a significant effect on the risk management options for the site.

Ecological Risk Woricgroup Report

Soi^'a Schuyler presented an account of tfae Ecological Risk Workgroup meeting. Ms. Schuyler reported that the Workgroup narrowed or settled outright many issues raised at its previous meeting. Several Memfaeris added that the meeting went amazingly well and that the Workgroup is well on its way to finalizing the draft SOW.

A Member voiced ooncem that the draft SOW looks like a boilerplate. Several partidpants iajssured the Coundl that the draft is completely site-specific and quite comprehensive. It simply looks like a boilerplate because of its formatting.

G As provided in the protocols, this summaiy has not been approved by the Council, nor should it be construed as

representing the oflicial position of the Coundl or any Member as to what transpired at the meeting.

PINE STREET BARGE CANAL COORDINATING COUNCIL

HUMAN HEALTH WORKGROUP

MEETING SUMMARY — MARCH 30-31, 1994

The facilitator explained that tensions commonly run high at this stage of consensual processes and assured the workgroup that this is nothing to worry about. This type of tension is actually beneficial in that it helps bring disagreements to the surface. It is also evidence that the various groups are attempting to move toward an end.

A participant expressed grave.concern about the use of the words "agreement" and "consensus" in the worlq rroup meeting summaries. This partidpant asked that the group make sure formal consensus is reached by polling each partidpant before an agreement is reported. Sonie partidpants agreed. Other partidpants, however, pointed out that it is incumbent upon those present at a meeting to voice any objections they mij^t have to what might otherwise appear to be an agreement. Absent overt ofatjection it is difficult to discern disagreement, and polling can dismpt theflow of a discussion.

A partidpant requested that the draft SOW be reformatted to include an ofajective, nuyor points of agreement a proposed approach, and a "to-do" section for each data gap identified. Majority and minority opinions could be included when there is no agreement The fiadlitator explaioed that there is no need to designate positions as either m jori1y or minority - tiiey can simply be presented as options.

A partidpant asked whether agreement to perform a calculation means that the calculation's result becomes binding. If this is the case, some partidpants may base their decisions to recommend particular studies on the expected outcome of those studies. Another partidipant suggested that this issue be addressed on a case l^ case basis since it has risk management implications. It has not yet been established which body will make risk management decisions.

Suzanne Simon distributed a letter to the facilitator raising a number of concems about the process. Ms. Simon suggested that tfae group draft a more complete smnmaiy at the end of each meeting dayfor use in reporting to the Coordinating Coundl rather than relying on the fUp-charts generated during the meeting. Ms. Simon also noted that some of her positions were not reflected in tfae suxnmaxy of the last Human Health Workgroup meeting. She stressed that even minor opinions need to be recorded and considered.

The facilitator reminded the group that the meeting simimaries are intended to capture the flavor of a meeting and provide a memoiy-jog. Though the summaries are carefully crafted, it is unlikely that any of them will accurately portray eveiything tfaiat was said at a meeting. They are not meant to be an official accoimt and contain a disclaimer to this efBect The fodlitator invited anyone who lias a ms^or problem with a summary to bring it tofads attention

A As provided in the protocols, this summaiy has not been approved by the CouncU, nor should it be construed as representing the oflicial position of the Council or anv Member as to what transpired at the meeting.

so that a correction can be distributed.

Several participants reemphasized that any concems must be voiced at the workgroup meetings themselves, rather than during the recap of the meeting to the Coordinating Covmcil. It is impossible to hold an open dialogue unless aU opinions are aired completely.

A participant noted that the goals put forth by the Lake Champlain Committee at the Coordinating Council meeting are not currentiy reflected in the draft Human Health SOW. It is important that the LCC representatives make sure their organization's goals are addressed so that there is not a proUem when the completed SOW is suhnutted to the Council for review.

Industrial or Commercial Use of Groundwater

In response to a prior question finm EPA, Mike Smith of Vermont DEC explained that the groundwater under the site is designated as a Class IV, Non-Potable Water source. This means that the water is suitable for industrial puiposes, but not for human use. A series of regulations and administrative procedures prevent the drilling of wells for human consumption in Class IV waters.

This explanation seemed to alleviate EPA's concems regarding ingestion of industrial water, but the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease R e ^ t i y (ATSDR) explained that it never acts on the assumption that non-potable water will not he consumed. ATSDR would like to check all existing wells On the site to make sure no water ia being consumed before dismissing the issue.

EPA indicated an interest in evaluating the riskfirom dennal exposure to industrial water drawn finm the shallow aqui&r. Several partidpants pointed out that there are no wells in the shallow aquifer and argued that it is extremely unlikely any will be drilled in the future. They noted that a clean bedrock aqui&r is readify available and would provide a much greater yield. In addition, the sand lens th rou^ which water finm the shallow, aquifer would have to be drawn underlies a wetland. These arguments did not perisuade EPA that the exposure scenario is unrealistic.

Fish Consnmption

Several partidpants advocated a phased approach to evaluating the risk firom fish consumption. Some argued that the first phase should consistof a consumption pattern study to see if this eiqwsure patiiway is a concern at all^ If the grOup were to detennine ttiat people are not consuming fish caught at the site on a regular basis, tliere would be no need to test for the presence of contaminants in the fish tissue.

Others, however, advocated testing fish tissue for the presence of contaminants first especially since the Ecological Risk Workgroup plans to collect fish samples anyway. They

As provided in the protocols, this summary has not been approved by the Council, nor should it be construed as representing the official position of the Council or anv Member as to what transpired at the meeting.

maintained that fish consumption patterns are irrelevant if the fish do not contain significant levels of contaminants.

One participant asserted that neither of these phasing options is necesssiry because fish metabolize PAHs, and the metabolites do not bioaccumulate. Most others agreed that bioaccumulation in fish is not a concern, although a few requested additional information before dismissing the issue. David Burmaster and Ann Marie Burke will prepare materials concerning bioaccumulation in fish.

The workgroup discussed fish consumption assumptions, but reached no agreement. A partidpant noted that eiqx>sure assumptions and scenarios for use in future calculations on this and other issues will need to be discussed at some point EPA explained that its established methods of calculating risk are not open to change, but nonetheless invited the other parties to propose altemative methods.

Exposure to Surfiace Water by Lake Swimmer

EPA explained that this issue appears in the draft SOW because fow sur&oe water and sediment samples have been collected in the past. Several partidpants argued that this issue should be dropped if the Fate and Transport Workgroup determines that movement of contaminants to the lake in harmful concentrations is unlikely. Most of the workgroup seemed to agree, but one partidpant explained that she wiU need the porsOnal assurance of her hydrogeologist that contaminants are not entering the lake before abandoning the issue. The workgroup devebped a specific question to ask ibe Fate and Transport Workgroup, and dedded that it would like an answer in writing. If there is no consensus, eadi caucus will be asked to present its position individually.

After a break, several partidpants agreed that sur&ce water sampling is appropriate in limited foshion. One of these partidpants noted, however, that he agreed to support sampling despitefads continued belief that it is unnecessaiy.

Exposure to Sediment by Lake Swimmer

Several partidpants maintained tfaat enough data exists to endorse EPA's previous risk assessment whichutiHzed a conservative approach and conduded that tiiere is no unacceptable risk to lake swimmers fimn eaposure to sediment. T h also e3q>lained tfaat the sediment under the swimming axea atljaoent to the site is sandy because the area is a high energy environment Since sand does not accumulate PAHs, exposure to siediment shoiild not be a concern. Additionally, any pockets of organic sediment would necessairily be located in areas of deposition, which means they would be covered by new sediment fkirly quickly.

One partidpant, however, argued that current data is inadequate to make this deterinination, and maintained that additional sediment samples are needed dose to shore.

c\ As provided in the protocols, this sunmiary has not been approved by the Council, nor should it be construed as representing the official position of the Council or anv Member as to what transpired at the meeting.

Since the group dedded to ssmiple surface water, she argued, it should test sediment in the same locations.

Another participant suggested conducting a visual survey to make sure the sediment is sandy. If it is, he asserted, there is no reason to sample it because sand cannot retain contaminants. The group agreed to perform this type of survey if all concems are not dispelled by a review of existing sediment data and the deliberations of the Fate and Transport Workgroup.

Site Worker Exposure to Subsurface Soil

Various partidpants reported that their construction engineers deemed excavation below 5 feet extremely unlikely on site because Of the high water ta.ble. The group seemed to agree that site worker exposure is therefore not a concem, although one partidpant cautioned that her agreement is based on the assumption that wOrker site safety plans will befollowed in the event any m^jor construction does occur.

Dermal Exposure to Site Contaminants

One partidpant argued that additional surface soil data needs to be collected to properly evaluate risks firom dermal exposure. Though others j maintained that contaminant concentrations seem to increase with depth and pointed out that composite soil samples finm 0r2 feet showed no risk, this partidpant maintained that additional sampling of the top 3 inches Of soilis neeessaiy.

Several paitidpants maintained that EPA's risk assessmentfound no risk of chronic effects firom exposure to the subsoil I h argued tfaiat there is therefore no need to further investigate chronic efifects with tfae exception of the "landing pad" area. Most of the group seemed to agree, although oiie partidpant explained that she was not prepared to diiacuss chronic effects.

One partidpant maintained that it will be difBcult to calculate the risk of rashes and other similar efifects. Several partidpants a:dvocated asking ATSDR to assess the risk of acute dermal effects. Still ?«nt.>i«r partidpant requested that ATSDR provide a more lengthy repoil of its methods and findings if it isfaired to perform a consult

The workgroiq) agreed that additional sampling is needed in the landing pad, but had trouble dedding on depth of sampling and what to sample for. One partidpant argued for sampling the top 3 inches of soil, ^diile another advocated sampling to a depth of one foot They eventually agreed to take separate samples of approximately JQIO centimetera (-'3") and 10-30 centimeters (~2'). After tfae shallow samples are evaluatedil they will be combined with the deeper samples to produce a compodte measurementfirom 0-30 centimeters.

A few participants advocated testing for PCBs and a full suite of pestiddes. Others

r As provided in the protocols, this suminary has not been approved by the Council, nor should it be construed as

representing the ofRcial position of the Council or anv Member as to what transpired at the meeting.

pointed out that the Ecological Risk Workgroup previously agreed there is no need to test for these substances, and added that the 0-2 foot sampling data would have shown PCBs and pesticides if they were present on the site.

Drinking Water From the Lake

Several participants asserted that there is no threat posed by drinking water taken firom the lake. They pointed out that it is illegal to drink untreated lake water because the lake is not designated as a Class A water source. In addition, the dty's drinking water intake is located a mi1« north of the site and over a mile offshore, at a depth of 60 feet. A representative of the City of Burlington assured the workgroup that for a variety of reasons there is no chance the City would move the intake closer to the site. He explained that if the intake is ever moved it will be extended further oflshore.

Most participants seemed to agree that there is no threat firom drinking water, but one held out the possibility that the intake will be moved near the site. Another partidpant asserted that it is physically impossible to bring the intake close enough to the site for it to be exposed to significant levels of contaminants because the water is not deep enough in that location. Others pointed out that the intake would not be moved there anyway because Martin Marietta has an NPDES permit to discharge 150,000 gallons of runofiTand coolant water per day into the lake 1,000 feet ofi&hore. In addition, there is a sewage discharge pipe loca:ted between the site and the current drinking water intake.

The group fiEiiled tO reach agreement on whether the intake couldfa« moved doser to the site. One partidpant maintained that the risk of exposure Should be calculated anamriiiig a point of exposure close to tfae site, while others contended that the point of exposure should be the existing drinking water intake pipe. Several partidpants asserted that the workgroup needs to base future discussions on some level of reasonable expectations if it is to r^u:h agreement

Exposure to Airborne Contaminants

A partidpant proposed a phased approach to air sampling. Ihe initial phase would involve determining whether it is possible to distinguish between site and backgrOimd emissions and ascertaining the presence or absence of "hot-spots." Any required sampling could be accomplished by methods proposed in the Ecological Risk Workgroup meetings. The group did not have time to address this proposal and wiU revisit the issue at the next meeting.

Homework

Any documents for distribution in advance of the next meeting must fae submitted to the fadlitator no later thian April 14,1994.

/ /

As provided in the protocols, this summaiy has not been approved by the Council, nor should it be construed representinp; the oflicial position of the Council or anv Member as to what transpired at the ineeting.

PINE STREET BARGE CANAL COORDINATING COUNCIL

ECOLOGICAL RISK WORKGROUP

MEETING SUMMARY — MARCH 29-30, 1994

The workgroup used the March 22,1994 "Draft Outline for the Ecological ScOpe of Work" prepared by EPA as the basis for its discussion. Susan Svirsky led the grOup through a review of the document. There was a great deal of discussion and negotiation of sample numbers, depths, locations and other similarly detailed topics. Though these types of tedmical discussions are not captured in this summaiy, their outcome can be determinedfilOm the iiext iteration of the draft SOW. Several partidpants also suggested wording changes to the Migor Points of Agreement and other sections. Wordsmithing changes will also be reflected in the next iteration of the SOW.

The State representatives noted that they do not represent the State's role as a trustee for the site. The workgroup agreed that it is essential for the State's trustee role to be represented at the table.

A participant asked the workgroup to make sure it would be comfortable using lower trophic level oigamsms as indicators of potential ecosystem harm if higher level Organisms are not evaluated. The workgroup would likely need to produce a position paper defending audi a decision. Another partidpant noted that stress to lower trophic level organisms would indicate that there could be a threat to the ecosystem as a whole, but would nOt provide conclusive evidence. Additional investigation would be neeessaiy to determine risk to higher level organisms. The fadlitator requested that each partidpant be prepared to defend the Coundl's choice to use bwer trophic level organisms as indicators of ecosystem health if it deddes to do so.

A partidpant questioned one of the Points of Agreement, which stated that one season of study would piobably be sufiBdent provided "representative" lake levels, weather conditions, etc. He asserted that the workgroup had actually agreed that one season would be suffident to collect badEground informntinn, but that another season would likely be necessary for follow up studies. After brief discussion, the workgroup agreed that two seaisons of study will most likely be neeessaiy, thou|^ under ideal circumstances it might be possible to complete most work in a single season.

Alan Mcintosh reported that he has some chemical and tcoddty test data fit>m lake sediment but that this is not the literature survey alluded to in number 5 of the Major Points in Need of Further Discussion section, as had been indicated. Mr. Mcintosh said thatfais data indicate the presence of PAHs at several sites, but added that only some of the data will be relevant to the woikgroup. A partidpant suggested amimiilating a list of data that is available to eveiyone on the workgroup.

d As provided in the protocols, this summary Yiaa not been approved by the Council, nor should it be construed as representing the oflicial position of the Council or any Member as to what transpired at the meeting. \

Alan Quackenbush reported that the State is doing new field work on urban streams. Unfortunately, this data will not be available for several months. In addition, State urban stormwater data will not be available for about a year.

A partidpant proposed adding an eleventh Point in Need of Further Discussion regarding the canal's regenerative properties. Another person mentioned that the Fate and Transport Workgroup discussed this issue and decided that biodegradation of contaminants is likely occurring only at tbe edges of the contaminant plume. Several participants suggested this is a question more appropriate for the Fate and Transport Workgroup, but another argued that the Eco group could help determine whether the ecology of the site is improving consistentiy or not. This participant believes biodegradation at thefiringes of the contaminant plume may be muting the ecological efliects of the contaminants, and suggested reviewing aerial photos of vegetation to determine whether the efifects have been reduced over time. The workgroup decided to add this item to the Ust and to investigate whetfaer any useful infonnation on the topic exists.

Ken Carr announced that after reviewing a series of maps he believes the suifiace soils in the upland portions of the site are in acceptable condition. The workgroup is now in full agreement that there is no need for additional sampling in the uplands.

Canal Sediment Sampling

A partidpant asked why (Tanide had been induded in the analytical parameters for canal sediment sampling. A few membere said they would like to test for cyanide because it is typicaUy present in coal tar wastes. Others, however, maintained that they had not encountered cyanide at other coal tar sites and pointed out that cjranide is not likely to be bio­available because it attaches itself to other substances. The workgroup dedded to look at whatever cyanide data is available and revisit the issue at the next meeting.

Another partidpant asked whetfaer soil sampling of the "landing pad" should be performed under the Human Health Woikgoup's purview. Several partidpants argued vigorously that Eco should keep lanHing pad sampling in its own statement of work, especiaUy since it appears to be located in the wetland.

A partidpant mentioned that a crust or "pavement" may have formed on the top layer of NAPL in some parts of the site. Since sedinient sampling methods may have to be altered in areas, where the pavement is present the workgroup may want to consider surveying for its presence. Another partidpant oonfiprmed that this typo of crust has been encountered at the site and is difficult to sample through Another partidpant alerted the workgroup to the possibility of determining the extent of the pavement by remote sensing. The workgroup agreed that this is a possibihty, and dedded to bring the idea to the attention of the Fate and Transport Workgroup. The Eco workgroup would also like the Fate and Transport Workgroup to deterinine the extent offine-phase product at the site to a depth of 2 feet and especiaUy on the sui&ce. A partidpant also expressed interest in determining whether organisms are Uving on

/5 As provided in the protocols, this suinmary hfu not been approved by the'Cpuncil, nor should it be construed as

representing the official position of the Council or anv Member as to what transpired at the meeting. - '

top of the pavement.

A participant suggested only testing for the 13 metals identified by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), rather than the 23 named in the EPA guidance document, since they are the only toxic metals. Another partidpant asserted that the cost of testing for the additional 10 inetals is minimal. The workgroup decided to test for aU 23 metals, unless it is determined that the increased cost of doing so is significant.

Wetland Surfiace Soil Sampling

The workgroup agreed to utilize a grid approach to wetland sOil sampling and discussed locations, depths, and numbers of samples. The workgroup also settied on sampling numbers for the landing pad area.

A partidpant asserted that detection Umits are a nuyor problem in the wetland areas. Another suggested the workgroup focus solely on the biggest toxic spikes since it will be very eiq>ensive to look at the small spikes. StiU another, however, maintained that the smaU spikes need to be addressed as weU The workgroup wiU revisit the detection limit issue at the next meeting.

David Bulmaster distributed a series of documents addressing non-detects. Afr. Burmaster explained that the default treatment for a non-detect is to use half the detection limit While this is often usefiil, it is hot in eveiy instance. Mr. Burmaster requested that the workgroup membere read the information he distributed in advance of the next meeting.

Benthic Inver tebrate Surveys

The workgroup agreed tfaiat there is no need to perform a quaUtative benthic survey and deleted that entire section firom the draft SOW. The group further agreed to move tfae quantitative benthic study to Phase I, except for toxidty tests. The workgroup! also edited the objective of the section. Exact wording appeara in the attached iteration.

A partidpant suggested that the workgroup limit its wetland vegetation evaluation to Typha and perhaps One or two additional spedes. A few others agreed. Biomass sampling would have to be done seasonally to generate a reliable estimate of productivity. A partidpant asked the workgroup to research other methods of measuring productivity. The issue wiU be revisited at the next meeting.

Fisheries Evaluation

One partidpant asserted that a mark and recapture s trat^y for evaluating the fisheiy wiU not work, and recommended using telemetiy. Another, however, argued that mark and

: ' \ \

As provided in the protocols, this summaiy has not been approved by the Council, nor should it be construed as representing the oflicial position of the Council or any Member as to what transpired at the meeting. .. :•

recapture is feasible. Another participant suggested that either type of evaluation should begin in early spring and continue until the canal/lake interface dries up. Workgroup members were asked to consider methods of measuring use of the canal by lake fish. John Teal and Alan Mcintosh wiU drculate papers on biomarker methods and procedures for discussion at the next meeting.

Habitat Evaluation/Functional Assessment

A partidpant asserted that the WET process does not adequately address wildlife habitat or stormwater fimctions. Another explained that the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) is a method of comparing what is encountered at a site with a theoretical model. The model uses existing conditions to calculate the population of a certain spedes one might expect to find. The model is simply another piece of evidence that can be used to assess an ecosystem - it is not conclusive by any means. Information on the HEP wiU he distributed in advance of the next meeting. Several other membere mentioned the possibihty of taking a quantified inventoiy of avian and other spedes.

Update l i t e r a t o r e S u r v ^

A partidpant reported that the Johnson Company vdunteered to maintain a biUiography of aU documents used by the Coordinating Coundl and Workgroups. A physical dbcument repository wiU be set up iat Green Mountain Power untU the process comes to an end. The repository wiU then be moved to local Ubraries. The Johnson Company wiU periodicaUy send a copy of the bibUography to the fadhtator for distribution to the Coundl and Workgroups.

Site Hydrology/Water Quality

The workgroup dedded that the Fate and Transport Workgroup should be in charge of most site hydrology issues. Several partadpants commented that there is Uttie reason to measure nutrient content in the water column, other than dissolved oxygen. The workgroup agreed to drop nutrient evaluation firom the issue ofagective. A partidpant asserted the group needs storm event information, and suggested continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen. Another recommended ineasuring total siispended contaminants during storm events. StiU another advocatedffftllft<*HTig (lata during high and low flow in addition to storm events.

A few partidjpants reoommended pore water testing. Otfaers, however, suggested sediment toxidty tests instead. The group agreed to revisit these questions at its next meeting.

Phase n Sampling/Evaluation Activities

A participant suggested that pestiddes and PCBs be removed firom the objective. This

As provided in the protocols, this summaiy has not been approved by the Council, nor should it be construed as representing the official position of the Council or anvMember aa to what transpired at the meeting.

partidpant argued that if pesticides and PCBs are found on the site, the PRPs wiU have to pay for their cleanup even though they were not responsible for their deposition. Another participant noted that the purpose of toxicity tests would be to identify specific coal tar contaminants and have the PRPs clean them up, not wastesfirom other soiurces.

Several partidpants suggested testingfor cardnogenic effects on birds. One recommended biomarkers for birds whose territory includes the site. Testingfledgling redwinged blackbirds, for example, might help determine whether cardnogehs are reaching avian spedes through moUusk consumption. One participant noted that he beheves exposure to birds is a given. He asserted that there is no need to test for bird exposure unless someone plans to chaUenge that assumption.

There was Uttie agreement on test species for the wetlands. It is possible that the workgroup wiU not know what to test for until it has examined the conditions at the site in detail.

A partidpant mentioned that morphology can be used in the field to identify cardnogenic effects in fish Fin deformities, lip nodules, and other phjrsical indicators of cardnogenic efifects can be observed. The workgroup agreed to look for cardnogenic efifects in brown bullheads, which are likefy to accumulate more poUutants than any other fish at the site because of their interaction with bottom sediments. A partidpant cautioned against relying sOlefy on morphology to the exclusion of histo-patfauilogy. Another member suggested wv*nniniTig external and intemal pathology and gross morphology at the same time. The group wiU revisit these issues at the next meeting.

P h a s e m ?

A partidpant proposed adding a potential phase m study to establish efifects firom individual contaminants if the initial phases show no correlation between contaminants and toxidty. Conoentrations of ispedfic cohtaminants wfll need to be derived so that remediation can aim at ledudng contaminants to specific levels. Another partidpant pointed out that it wiU not be possible to clean up individual compounds out of the mix, and suggested that attempting to evaluate the exact toxicological effect of specific contaminants is therefore unnecessaiy. The group wiU revisit the issue at the next meeting.

,6

r*rnft Organ iza t iona l Pro t^^f f f Anril 8. 1994

PINE STREET BARGE CANAL COORDINATING COUNCIL

ORGANIZATIONAL PROTOCOLS

GOAL OF THE COUNCIL

The goal of the Coundl is to reach consensus on the scope of work for further studies of the Pine Street Site, recommendation of a remedy that is both acceptable to the community and satisfies EPA's and the State of Vermont's statutoiy and regulatory obUgations, and such other subgects as the Coundl may by consensus agree to consider.

PARTICIPANTS

Interests Represented. Any interest that would be significantiy afifeded by dedsions or agreements madefaiy tfae Coundl may be represented. OrganizatiouSi agendas, companies, and individuals may join with other allied interests to form a caucus to be represented l^ one or more individuals.

The Coordinating CoonciL Each Organization or interest caucus that is represented on the Coundl wiU be deemed a party to the Council and wiU appoint a designated number of Membere of the Coordinating CoundL

Alternates for Conncil Members. Each party may designate one or more alternates for each of its Coundl Members. Alternates may substitute for Coundl Men^)ere in the event a Member cannot attend a session of the Coordinating Council.

Additicmal Parties. Additional paities may join the Coundl after its initial fonnation only with the concurrence of the CounciL

Constituents' Interests. Mexobera are expected to consult with their constituents and colleagues and to raise their interests and concems durihg the discussions of the CouncU.

DECISIONMAKING

Decisions by Consensus. The CouncU wiU make dedsions by consensus. For these purposes, consensus means that decisions are made only with the concurrence of aU Members preseiit at the meeting where the issue is considered. Unless otherwise determined by the CouncU, consensus agreements reached during the course of deUberations wUl be considered tentative agreements untU the Coundl has reached final

\ \

n r» f t Orgamza t iona l P ro tnnn l s i ^ . April 8: 19Q4

agreement on the scope of work and such other subjects as the CouncU agrees to consider. Members wiU be given reasonable opportunity to consult with their constituents prior to a final agreement.

EPA Responsibility and I n t e n t The parties recognize that under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, govemmental authority may be exercised only by ofificere of the United States and that it is EPA's sole responsibihty to make various dedsions under CERCLA. Any final agreement of the CouncU represents a good faith statement of the action that EPA intends to take, and not the final Agency dedsion in the matter. EPA intends to make its final decisions in a maimer consistent, with the final agreements of the Coimdl, sufagect to its legal obligations and any limitations on its discretion imposed by law.

If the Coordinating CouncU reaches a final decision as to a matter which EPA is required to puUish foimaUy for pubUc comment (for example, a proposed plan for remedial action), the Coundl wiU reconvene as neeessaiy foUowing the close of tfae pubUc comment period to consider significant comments received. FoUowing the CouncU's consideration of those comments, andfiiUy considering any recommendations that the CoimcU may make, to the extent consistent with EPA's legal responsibiUties, EPA wiU consider and respond to significant comments received during the public comment period and wiU make such modifications as are appropriate under the circumstances (for example, in issuing a Record of Decision). When the CouncU considere the comments, EPA wiU partidpate in the discussions, but EPA's concurrence shaU not be required for the Coundl to make a recommendation

Agenda. A draft agenda for each meeting wiU be prepared by the fadhtator after consultation with the Coundl Membere. The agenda wUl be approved fay consensus.

Workgroups. Workgroups may be formed to address specific issues and to make recommendations to the CouncU as a whole. Workgroups are open to any CouncU Member or the Member's designee, plus such other individuals as the Council agrees wiU pmhaTiw the functioning of the woikgroup. Woikgroups are not authorized to inake decisions for the CoiihcU. AU Coundl Membere wiU be notified of aU workgroup meetings.

AOC Negotiations. Representatives of the PRPs, the State, and EPA wiU periodicaUy inform the Coundl of the status of their independent concurrent negotiations of an Administrative Order of Consent (AOC).

AGREEMENT

Written Statement. Any final agreement wiU take the form of a written statement that wiU be signed by the Membere who are appropriately authorized by the parties they represent.

Support of Agreements. The Membere and the parties represented by the Membere

2

//

Prnft ftTff""izarioPaJ ProtocoLs April 8. 1 ( 94

agree to proceed in good faith to support and effect the terms of any final agreement reached pureuant to these protocols. Each such party agrees not to file formal comments which are inconsistent with the express terms of a final agreement.

PROCEDURES

Open Meetings. Meetings of the CouncU wiU be open to the pubhc.

Attendance at Meetings. Eadi Member of the CouncU agrees to make a good faith effort to attend every meeting. The Member may be accompaniedfay such other individuals as the Member beUeves is appropriate to represent the interests of the Member's constituents. Only tfae Member wiU liave the privUege of sitting at tfae table and speaking during the

. discussions without the approval of the CouncU, except that a Coundl Member may caU upon an adviser to elaborate on a relevant point The Coundl may invite otfaera to attend the meetings when resource people are needed or for other purposes.

Meet ing Summaries. Meeting summaries wiU be prepared for tfae convenience of the CoundL Such stonmaries wiU not be approved by the Council, and such summaries and any electronic recordings of meetings wiU not be construed as representing the official position of the Coundl or any Member of the Coundl as to what transpired at the Coundl meetings. In addition, the summaries wiU announce future meetings of the CoundL The summaries wiU be made available to the puhhc on request unless the Coundl agrees that summaries of spedfic meetings or parts of meetings be held as confidential.

Caucus. Two or more membere of the Coundl may confer privately during or after a CovmcU meeting as they consider appropriate. The fadUtator may also confer privately with inembers of the coundl during or after Coundl meetings.

Good FaitfaL AU parties agree to act in good faith in aU aspects of these discussions. Specific ofifere, positions, or statements made during the discussions may not be used by other parties for any other purpose not previously agreed to in writing by the parties involved. It is tfae intent of the Coundl that other attendees of tiie meetings volimtarily compfy with this provision in order to support the dialogue process by encouraging the firee and open r rhan^ of ideas, views, and ibformation prior to achieving consensus. Personal attacks and prqudioed statements wiU not be toleirated.

R i | to Withdraw. Any party may withdraw from the discussions at any time without prejudice. The remaining CouncU Membere wiU then dedde whether to continue the discussions.

Others'Positions. No Member wiU characterize or make a comment pubUdy concerning the position of any other Member even if that Member withdraws firom the CouncU.

Facil i tator. A neutral faciUtator wiU work with aU the partidpants to ensure that the

3

^

n r a f t O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Profay.ft]|ff _ _ _ — Ann! 8; If^tlA

process nins smoothly. ThefodlitatOr serves at the wiU of the (CouncU and may be replaced by another or the role eliminated entirely as determined by the CouncU. The role of the facilitator usuaUy indudes developing draft agendas,focusing meeting discussions, working to resolve any impasses that inay arise, preparing meeting summaries, assisting in the location and circulation of background materialB and materials the Coundl develops, acting as a spokesperson for the CouncU as a whole, and such other functions as the CouncU requests.

SIGNATORIES

The undereigned signatories are appropriately authorized to exedite these protoools on behalf of the party or parties listed beneath their signatures.

Name:

Party:

Date:

3/30/94 Draft Vision For Future Bar^e Canal Site Quality

1. No negative effects from casual use of the site for swimmine or eating fish.

2. Limited, passive recreational use at the site. Kids should be able to walk throueh the area and not come in contact with contaminated matertaL

3. No impact on migratory animals.

4. A healthy surface wetiand function.

5. No future deleterious effects on the lake.