SDMS DocID 278619

P.morels Center

s~.: Co * K ̂ itv

O i »»i>»v!

FINAL PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY COAKLEY LANDFILL SITE

NORTH HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE

NORTH HAMPTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NORTH HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE

NOVEMBER 3, 1988 7:30 PM

FINAL PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

COAKLEY LANDFILL SITE

NORTH HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE

INTRODUCTION

On November 3, 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA),in conjunction with the New Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services (NHDES), held a public informational

meeting on the Coakley Landfill Superfund site in North Hampton,

New Hampshire. Topics discussed included the results of the

recently completed Remedial Investigation (RI) sampling and

testing, health assessment, financing and scheduling, the

enforcement process, and the state and federal role in cleanup

and citizens7 rights.

Approximately 68 people attended the meeting including

representatives of several radio stations and newspapers.

NHDES, EPA and contractual personnel attending the meeting

included Michael Robinette, NHDES Remedial Project Manager; Carl

Baxter, NHDES Administrator, Superfund Site Bureau; Michael

Sills, Chief Engineer, NHDES; Ellen Cavalier, Health Assessment

Coordinator, NH Division of Public Health Services; Dan

Coughlin, EPA Chief, NH Superfund Section; Paul Marchessault,

EPA Remedial Project Manager; Donald Grogan, and Arthur

Cunningham, EPA technological contractors from Weston, Inc.;

Scott Shillabar, Paul Sanborn and Debbie Listernick from

Goldberg-Zoino and Associates (NHDES' technical contractor).

NHDES and EPA presentations lasted approximately 30 minutes, and

the question and answer period that followed lasted

approximately two hours. Following the close of the meeting,

NHDES and EPA personnel and technical contractors made

themselves available for informal discussions with community

members. The agenda that NHDES distributed at the meeting is

included as Appendix A to this document.

-1­

PRESENTATIONS

Michael Robinette opened the meeting by introducing NHDES and

EPA staff and contractors who would be speaking and answering

questions at the meeting. Mr. Robinette then presented a

summary of the history of the Coakley Landfill and discussed the

latest activities at the site, including the extension of new

waterlines being brought in from North Road to Park Circle.

Mr. Robinette turned the meeting over to Scott Shillabar of

Goldberg-Zoino and Associates, Inc. who presented details on the

recently completed Remedial Investigation. Mr. Shillabar

discussed the work that was performed as part of the remedial

investigation. He described the site boundaries, well locations

and the various water, soil and sediment testing used to

determine the extent of contaminant migration.

Mr. Shillabar then briefly discussed the public health risk

assessment. He noted that six potential exposure pathways were

evaluated, including air, on-site soils, stream sediment,

surface water, overburden groundwater and bedrock groundwater.

The report concluded that there is a potential low-level

carcinogenic risk to humans through ingestion of groundwater

contaminated by arsenic. Noncarcinogenic health effects are not

expected from potential exposure to site contaminants. He

emphasized that both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks

from exposure to site contaminants in surface water and sediment

are expected to be minimal.

Mr. Robinette returned to the podium and informed all in

attendance of the upcoming events for the Coakley Landfill

Site. These events are the release of the Proposed Plan, the

public meeting for the Feasibility Study/Proposed Plan and the

public hearing. The public hearing, which will take place in

the early Spring, will be held to get public comments on the

Proposed Plan. Mr. Robinette then invited the meeting attendees

to ask questions and voice comments on the Remedial

Investigation.

-2­

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Questions raised by citizens at the public meeting are

summarized into the following categories: I) Sampling and

Testing Results; 2) Health Assessment; 3) Rye Landfill; 4)

Financing and Scheduling of the RI; 5) Enforcement Process; 6)

State and Federal Liability and Citizens7 Rights. Questions

asked and comments made by meeting attendees and the responses

given by NHDES and EPA are summarized below.

SAMPLING AND TESTING RESULTS

Comment; One citizen voiced concern regarding the removal of

barrels with Union Carbide of New York markings from the site.

Response: NHDES and EPA stated that they were unaware of any

such barrels at the site and did not know of any removal. NHDES

commented that the only barrels that they knew of on the site

were five barrels filled with solid material located at the

bottom of test pits. These barrels had no markings on them.

NHDES asked that any more information regarding removal of

barrels from the site be brought to their attention.

Comment: Several meeting attendees were concerned about air

sampling and monitoring. One citizen mentioned that in February

of 1986, three homes had air sampling performed at the request

of the Water Pollution Control Commission. Several traces of

volatile organic compounds were found. The citizen's concern

was that since that time no further air sampling had been done.

Likewise, another citizen expressed frustration over the fact

that the State could not tell her the source of contamination in

her home. She also asked if it were possible that gas could be

entering her home by migrating through underground streams.

-3­

Response; A representative from the Environmental Health Risk

Assessment Unit, NH Division of Public Health Services (NHDPHS),

responded that results from previous air monitoring tests show

that air quality is not a threat to people who live in those

homes. She also stated that oftentimes there are materials

commonly found in the home that could be the potential source of

contamination and cause the variation in air quality. The

NHDPHS representative explained that while she could not

specifically state the source of contaminants in the homes,

there was the potential for gas to migrate into the home via

contaminated groundwater beneath homes.

Comment; A citizen commented that four residential bedrock

wells on Lafayette Terrace were tested intensively in 1983.

Since that time nothing has been done. The citizen asked when

NHDES would resample the wells, in order to determine whether

pumping them affected contaminant migration. Specifically

mentioned were wells RW25-28.

The citizen submitted a letter from the New Hampshire Toxic

Hazards Campaign Inc. (Appendix B)

Response; NHDES commented that they understood that these wells

had been destroyed or paved over. If the State had known any of

these wells were operable, they would have tested them. The

State noted that water quality in the wells may be significantly

different than what was there between 1972-1982 since

contaminant migration from the site at that time was influenced

by pumping from these wells. Therefore, water quality results

now may not be indicative of what was being used in the past.

Comment; A resident of North Road questioned whether or not

wells would continue to be sampled.

-4­

Response: NHDES assured the resident that the wells would

continue to be sampled.

Comment: A resident of Lafayette Terrace asked why nothing had

been done about sand blowing around on the street that had been

used to cover contaminants at the site. Concern was that

residents were inhaling the contaminated sand.

Response; NHDES responded that sand that had been tested is

under the landfill along the periphery. NHDES explained that it

is now in the process of sampling the surface sand.

Comment: One citizen was concerned about the results of the

study of radioactive material at the Coakley Landfill.

Response: NHDES stated that four sets of investigations had been

completed. Results of the investigations showed that no levels

at the site were above background levels or naturally occuring

levels. The results of two sets of samplings are in the

Remedial Investigation. The results of the other two sampling

rounds are in NHDES files.

Comment: Another citizen asked what the source of the oil debris

area was and how much material the oil debris area encompassed.

Response; NHDES determined that the oil debris area at the

Coakley Landfill site originated from an oil spill clean up on

the Piscataqua River. Approximately 500-600 yards of material

was brought onto the site. NHDES was not sure who transported

the oil debris to the site. It was mentioned that information

may be available in the State records.

-5­

Comment: A local resident was concerned that 20 times the

acceptable level of benzene was found on the site and questioned

whether any amount of benzene was acceptable. She asked if

benzene is a known carcinogen.

Response: Representatives from EPA clarified that the highest

recorded concentration of benzene found at the Coakley Landfill

site was 60 ppb, which is 12 times the federal standard. A

member of EPA gave a short explanation in the determination of

risk from a specific contaminant. She explained that when

considering toxicity levels both dosage and exposure levels are

taken into account. If the potential for exposure is small,

then the level of risk could also be small. In situations where

the potential for exposure is not available, EPA may establish

hypothetical situations to assess the level of risk. The EPA

representative went on to explain that the standards used when

determining risk potential include a safety factor. The safety

factor is based on studies with animals that are tested at much

nigher levels then any possible human consumption.

Comment: One citizen asked why NHDES only tested wells for

VOC's. He said he understood that VOC's dissipate quickly and

that if they only test for VOC's they may miss heavy metal

contamination which may not migrate as quickly. He suggested

that further testing should be done to ensure that the right

decisions were being made. He commented that sometimes

assumptions can be disastrous, especially in hindsight.

Response: NHDES responded that the Remedial Investigation Study

primarily concentrated on volatile organic compounds. NHDES

representatives reasoned that because VOC's travel through

groundwater at a higher speed than other types of contaminants,

early signs of contamination can be determined by screening for

them. NHDES realizes that VOC's dissipate quickly and use them

-6­

as a screening method only, knowing that they are not foolproof.

NHDES emphasized that they knew of no instance where they found

heavy metal contamination without also finding VOC

contamination.

HEALTH ASSESSMENT

Comment: One citizen expressed concern over the safety of the

Hampton water supply for the entire town as a result of the

findings of the Remedial Investigation. In addition, he wanted

to know if there would be an effect on a potential municipal

well field located off North Road 3,000 feet south-southwest of

the site.

Response: The state indicated that based on the Remedial

Investigation results, the existing North Hampton municipal

water supply system is not in jeopardy. They also indicated

that they did not look at changes in the water supply system in

the area or the effect substantial pumping of a new well field

could have on contaminant migration from the site.

Comment: A resident of Lafayette Terrace expressed her

dissatisfaction with the results of the Health Assessment

conducted by NHDPHS. The resident provided results of a health

assessment that she had conducted on her own, citing many

instances of illness in the Lafayette Terrace area. She

commented on the (NHDPHS)Health Assessment saying that its

methods were inaccurate, superficial and insignificant. The

resident called for a more in-depth, responsible study and

demanded a response from both the State and Federal government.

-7­

Response: NHDES was not able to adequately address these issues

due to the absence of the State Risk Assessment team.

Comment: Another citizen who owned land adjacent to the site had

researched and provided a list of 60 carcinogens that he

determined were found at the site and could not have been

disposed of by private citizens. The citizen expressed

particular concern that arsenic is now present in the water

supply when none had existed in the past.

Response: A representative for NHDES explained that

concentrations of contaminants that exceeded drinking water

standards were very small and the extent of the contamination

was very limited. Where arsenic was indicated it was observed

in a very specific area of contamination within the landfill.

Everywhere else contaminants were at background levels.

Comment; Another concern was that people were drinking water

contaminated with arsenic.

Response; NHDES assured citizens that the public water supply is

tested regularly and the results monitored by the State to

ensure that the water quality is in compliance with State water

quality criteria.

Comment: Giving examples of high cancer rates in the area, a

resident expressed frustration by stating that the health survey

was useless. He suggested that a revision in the health survey

be done, and that a state epidemiologist should have been

available for the meeting.

-8­

Response: In regard to the high incidences of cancer, an ATSDR

(Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry)

representative stated that based on current statistics it is

impossible to study pre-1983 exposure effects without any data.

She said that even with a full health survey, it would not be

possible to attribute the increased incidence of cancer to the

Coakley Landfill.

Comment: A meeting attendee expressed further frustration that

he was unable to ask questions about or gain access to results

of a Public Health Study being conducted at the Coakley

Landfill. According to the meeting attendee, the administrator

of the study gave specific directions not to divulge any

information. The meeting attendee wanted to know why this

situation existed.

Response: A representative of the NHDPHS said she was unaware of

any such directive. She clarified that she was not specifically

involved with the Coakley Landfill site, but was participating

in the meeting as support, representing the overseer group which

recommends drinking water standards. A spokesman for the State

clarified that no decision at Superfund sites is approved until

it goes through all appropriate levels of review.

Comment: A citizen expressed his concern for the future

well-being of area wildlife. Specifically he expressed concern

about the deer and fish in the area, and whether any testing had

been done in Little River and nearby streams. With the opening

of hunting season next week, he offered his support by providing

deer organs for study. He also expressed concern about

consumption of the meat.

-9­

Response; NHDES responded that samples had been taken in the

groundwater and sediments surrounding the Coakley Landfill.

However, no fish or wildlife tissue sampling had been done

because contaminant levels tested determined that there was no

further need for study. Representatives of the State assured

meeting attendees that the Feasibility Study would include

recommendations for a monitoring program around the site.

A representative of the NHDPHS also informed the citizen that

cadmium studies were being done on moose and deer in the state.

However, the purpose of this study is not to attribute the

source of contamination to any one source. In order to find

out more information it was suggested that the Fish and Game

Commission or the US Fish and Wildlife Service be contacted.

RYE LANDFILL

Comment; There was concern among several residents that nothing

was being done about the Rye Landfill. Citizens wanted to know

what effects the Rye Landfill had on the Coakley Landfill site.

Response; The State responded that the Coakley Landfill and the

Rye Landfill were two separate sites. It was emphasized that

the Rye Landfill was clearly a separate and distinct source area

of contamination. NHDES stated further that the EPA Superfund

provided a budget for the study and clean up of the Coakley

Landfill. The Rye Landfill was not on the Superfund National

Priorities List and therefore beyond the area studied under

CERCLA funding.

Comment; Another citizen expressed concern that contamination

north and east of the Coakley Landfill was not being addressed.

-10­

The citizen said that municipal water was not available to

residents of Lafayette Terrace and the trailer park adjacent to

the site, although the Remedial Investigation states that all

homes within 1000 feet of the Landfill have municipal water. He

continued by stating that the Rye Landfill accepted waste both

day and night that went unreported, some of which was ash from

Pease Air Force Base. He expressed offense that representatives

of the state and federal agencies were disrespectful and did not

regard this as a serious issue.

Response; The State emphasized its concern for the well-being

of the citizens. They assured residents that citizen concerns

were not being ignored and that NHDES and EPA roles are to study

the problem and find solutions. The State stressed that it was

on the side of the people and emphasized that the purpose of the

meeting was to hear and take into consideration citizen

concerns.

The State commented that the source of contamination was

difficult to identify. The focus at the site, at this time, is

concentrated upon what the contaminated waste is, and not

whether it came from commercial, municipal, or industrial

sources. Without a historical record of the site, these factors

are difficult to determine.

FINANCING AND SCHEDULING

Comment; A citizen questioned whether the Remedial Study time

frame had been slowed by local contractors due to the recent

building boom in the area.

Response: The State responded that it was unaware of any such

slowdown. To their knowledge the only delays occurred for a day

or two during the winter because the backhoes were unable to

operate in the snow.

-11­

Comment: One meeting attendee asked if the municipal waterline

would be extended along Breakfast Hill Road, and whether the

State would pay for the costs.

Response: NHDES was confident that the waterline extension

would be addressed in the Feasibility Study. The costs for the

waterline extension would be paid as part of the Superfund if it

were included in the remedial action.

Comment; A citizen asked how costs for site cleanup are

allocated and how the towns determine the cost to taxpayers to

pay for cleanup.

Response: The State responded that with Superfund sites an

agreement is based on a delineation of how much waste each

potentially responsible party (PRP) dumped on the site. In the

New Hampshire program, no' site has reached the stage where the

the town is involved in cleanup.

ENFORCEMENT PROCESS

Comment: Several meeting attendees expressed concern about who

the potentially responsible parties are at the site and why they

are unable to gain access to the names. Citizens also asked

what the State strategy is for those who are found responsible

for the dumping of contaminants. Citizens expressed particular

concern for federal agencies and other out-of-state dumpers.

Response: An official from EPA responded that approximately 300

"Request for Information" letters had been sent out. EPA is

still working on the information being collected and so far has

no conclusive results. EPA explained that PRPs (Potentially

Responsible Parties) include anyone who, to the state and

-12­

federal agencies' knowledge, dumped in the Coakley Landfill.

EPA emphasized that government agencies and other out-of-state

dumpers are held liable. EPA officials informed meeting

attendees that a list of PRPs might be available by January, but

that currently the PRP list remained under "Enforcement

Confidential" status for legal purposes.

Comment: Several citizens were concerned that the public did not

receive the same information about Superfund site activity as

the government. One meeting participant believed that when EPA

completed a study, it was 'watered down7 by lawyers. Another

concern was that lawyers were tapping phone conversations

between EPA officials and the public, limiting EPA to saying

only choice things to the public.

Response; Again, a representative of the State assured the

meeting participants that the NHDES and EPA were working to help

the residents. EPA assured that studies have not been watered

down and no one listens in on phone conversations. The more

evidence the State has against a PRP, the easier it is to

determine contaminants and cost of cleanup. The public has

equal access to site information. However, due to legal issues,

much of the information cannot be published until it has been

validated.

STATE AND FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND CITIZENS' RIGHTS

Comment; A citizen was concerned whether the State had any

lawsuits from citizens suffering from cancer. Another resident

interjected that her husband died of cancer as a result of

digging in the landfill. She was concerned that her land, which

is 6 1/2 acres adjacent to the Coakley Landfill on Lafayette

-13­

Road, was contaminated extensively, that no testing has been

done on her land, and that no one ever questioned her for a

health assessment. Her feelings were that, so far, the State

has done nothing.

Response; Again, the State expressed its concern for the

well-being of the local residents near the Coakley Landfill.

Comment: One citizen expressed concern about who the victims

should turn to for help and how the State or Federal government

planned to remediate the victims.

Response: A spokesman for the State suggested that victims file

their own lawsuits or contact their State legislator.

Comment; Several area residents inquired about relocation from

the area around the site 'and were concerned that nothing had

been done since the site was named to the National Priorities

List in 1983. One resident who lived in particularly close

proximity to the site expressed her feelings that no one should

live 500 feet from a hazardous waste site. She felt it was the

state's responsibility to move her family and pay for it.

Response: While the State recognized relocation of residents as

a possible remediation alternative, a spokesman for NHDES

indicated that both the NHDES and EPA have determined that the

level of risk at the Coakley Landfill site presently does not

warrant relocation of the population.

Comment: A meeting attendee wanted to know what legal authority

EPA has over Potentially Responsible Parties.

Response: EPA responded that it had legal power over PRPs.

-14­

COMMITMENT FOR FURTHER ACTION AT THE SITE

During the course of the meeting, the following commitment was

made:

1. A representative from ATSDR said that a meeting would be

organized in the near future to address citizen concerns

for public health and the effects of the Coakley Landfill.

SUMMARY

The meeting was well attended, and members of the audience took

an active interest in the results of the Remedial Investigation.

Major concern focused around the findings of the Risk Assessment,

the enforcement process and state and federal responsibility to

citizens affected by the site.

-15­

APPENDIX A

State of New Hampshire SOLID \VA<7E COfNCIL

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION MARII.V, AN: RF.U>

WLLIAM \RVlUi

6 Hazen Dm*. Concord. NH 03301-6509 RUBEKTBI RRiW-

JOHN I>HAM 603-271-2900 WILLIAM .'ENXE-.

ALDEN H. HOWARD JOHN LUALLEE CnM.Mli.-KiNEK AGENDA PHILIP M.v.ALLIS7Ek

FRE;JERII.K\IL.;;RR\ JOHN A. MINICHIELLO JOHNi)S<;(m!i

LORRAINE SANIiFil

MICHAEL A. SILLS. Ph.D.. P.E T. TAVLOREICHMV ^rO CHIEF ENGINEER Public Informational Meeting

Remedial Investigation of the Coakley Landfill North Hampton, NH

North Hampton Elementary School November 3, 1988, 7:30 pm

Introduction: Michael Robinette, P.G. Remedial Project Manager NH Department of Environmental Services

Remedial Investigation Presentation: Scott Shillabar, Senior Project Manager

Goldberg-Zoino and Associates, Inc.

Questions and Answers Period:

Representatives: Carl Baxter, P.E. Administrator, Superfund Site Bureau NH Department of Environmental Services

Ellen Cavalier, Health Assessment Coordinator Environmental Health Risk Assessment Unit NH Division of Public Health Services

Dan Coughlin, P.E. Chief, NH Superfund Section US Environmental Protection Agency Paul Marchessault Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency

Donald Grogan, P.E. Vice President, Weston, Inc. Arthur Cunningham, P.E. Project Director, Weston, Inc.

Paul Sanborn Vice President, Goldberg-Zoino and Associates Debbie Listernlk, Project Manager Goldberg-Zoino and Associates

01660

APPENDIX B

26 WILDERS GROVE - NEWTON JCT.,NH 030S9 - TEL. 602-382-6963

TOLL FREE NSW HAMPSHIRE NUMScR 1-803-922-5672

CoaJclay Landfill

There are four residential bedrock wells on Lafay«ttct

Terrace - RH 25, 2C , 27 and 28. TJies« veils were samp lad

and tested in February and March, 1583, These wella have not.

been tested since. According to ticfure 20, -vol. 1, well 20 was

tested 7-29-87, showing nothing detected. This Alleged test

of well RW 28 should be RW 11 belonging to the Breakfast Hill

Professional Associates on Lafayette Road - see vol. 3.

On February 11, 1936 three homes on Lafayette Terrace had

air sampling performed at the request of the old Water Supply

and Pollution Control Conaoission. Acetone, Benzene, Ethyl

Benzene, Tetrachloroethylene, Tetrahydrofuran, 1-1-1 Tridlloroethane,

Trichloroethylene, TrichlocomeLhane, Toluene, Met*, OrtiXO and

Xylenec were present, all only tracer but all defineable

all were coming through the walls and Tluurv of their

cellars. AA the ground was frozen at that date I call it passive

vaccuum extraction which will go on for years to come. Since

then there has been no other air monitoring in these homes. ' •

Trichloromethane showed up in the air sampling of these

homes and it showed up in the water saaeple at RW 53. Try

drawing a straight line from MM 4 to RW S3.

LIVE % FREE OR DIE •*-v-«

^6 WiLDERS GROVE - NEWTQK JCT..NH 03859 - TEL. 601-162-6363

TOLL FREE HtW HAMPSHIRE NUMBER 1-800-922-5672

It appears the DES i* uoret interested in self propigation and

atrengthining it's own bureaucracy than protecting the victim* and

residents of the area.

I have four questions;

1. When ia the DES bureaucracy going to reteat veil numbers

RW 25, 26, 27 and 28 aty you can say with authority, "contamination

migration in bedrock to the south and east of the landfill is greatly

influenced by pumping." f

2. When ia the bureaucracy going to recheck the air in the

cellars of the residences en Lafayette Terrace?

3. In defence of the victlnw I ask. to whom in the bureaucracy

can they turn to for answers to their health and environmental

problems?

And last but nob least/ number 4. Bow does the bureaucracy w

plan to remediate the victims?

Martha Bailey

EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 211 Congress Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02110-2410, (617) 451-1201

March 1, 1989 REM-RMI-88-664

Mr. Paul Marchessault Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency JFK Federal Building Boston, MA 02203

Subject: REM III - EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7250 WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 237-1L64 COAKLEY LANDFILL SITE FINAL PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Marchessault:

On behalf of the REM III team, Ebasco Services, Inc. is pleased to submit the enclosed copies of the Coakley Landfill Final Public Meeting Summary.

If you have any questions or comments please contact George Willant or myself at 451-1201.

Jill M. Paradis Community Relations Specialist

JMP/es Enclosure: Final Public Meeting Summary, Coakley

cc: K. James P. Enneking R. Boyd R. Gleason G. Willant