HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CAG-2013-12-02Community Advisory Group (CAG) Minutes for December 2, 2013
Present: Nels Bohn as City Facilitator, Ken Deschere, Regina Deschere, John Graves, Michele
Palmer, Kathy Woodcock
Guest(s): None
Agenda Additions and/or Deletions: No update and documents from DEC
PROJECT SITE UPDATES: None from DEC to review at this time
PROJECT DISCUSSION: Review Oct 2013 draft remedial Investigation Work Plan for the
Former Ithaca Gun Factory Site prepared by O’Brien & Gere to provide feedback. This
document is available online at the CAG website:
http://www.cityofithaca.org/boardscommittees/cag.cfm
The document itself is at:
http://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/ithaca/published_documents/Boards_and_Com
mittees/Community_Advisory_Group/Ithaca_Gun_Brownfield_Cleanup_Remedial_Investigation
_Work_Plan_October_2013.pdf
Update on Status of Ithaca Falls Overlook – N. Bohn reported that the Western Accessway
was finished after cleaning was accomplished from the bridge to the street. Also work was done
below the factory to eliminate contamination because the numbers were higher there. Digging
was deeper - down to two feet.
The Island is the high point which is the most contaminated area. It was necessary to get rid of
all the contamination to eliminate an erosion problem. There is a cap to keep things intact. This
cap may have been used to support a building at one time, so it may be the easiest thing to keep it
intact.
A Consolidated Funding Grant applied for in September is a good investment.
Remedial investigative work for groundwater contamination is on-going. Grading is needed and
the buildings and smoke stack should be removed.
A map of the site was reviewed to clarify a clean boundary. Treatment to the site is to be
confirmed by data collected two years ago. The question was raised, “How do you know it’s
clean after the work is done?” N. Bohn answered, “Investigation is happening at this point, with
remediation coming later.” Lab analysis is more reliable data than field analysis. One out of
four test sites need verification.
Monitoring wells will determine whether home tests are needed during the heating season. A
bore hole and possibly a monitoring well will be installed at the smoke stack. K. Deschere
wondered whether testing will adequately determine ground water contamination.
N. Bohn will type up a list of concerns expressed during this meeting to send to K. and R.
Deschere to help assure neighbors that the neighborhood is safe.
(See attached Comment on Draft Remedial investigation Work Plan, Former Ithaca Gun Factory
site presented to Gary Priscott, Department of Environmental Conservation.)
Markles Flats Site Remediation: CAG members concluded that it is a big improvement,
benefiting the neighborhood greatly.
Next Meeting: Monday, May 5, 6:00 – 7:30PM, 2nd Floor Conference Room, City Hall
Comment on Draft Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Former Ithaca Gun Factory Site
Sent via email: gwprisco@gw.dec.state.ny.us
To: Gary Priscott, Department of Environmental Conservation
From: Ken and Regina Deschere, Co‐Chairs, City of Ithaca Community Advisory Group (CAG)
Re: Comment on Draft Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Former Ithaca Gun Factory Site
Date: December 12, 2013
The Citywide CAG reviewed the October 2013 Draft Remedial Investigation Work Plan for the Former Ithaca Gun
Factory Site prepared by O’Brien & Gere for IFR Development LLC at its December 2, 2013 meeting. The CAG’s
mission is to enhance communication and promote better‐informed decisions about environmentally
contaminated sites impacting the City of Ithaca.
The CAG review focused on (1) the proposed soil investigation and (2) the proposed groundwater investigation,
and comments as follows:
Soil Investigation
1. What areas of the site are clean?
The work plan identifies soil data gaps only at areas ‘A’ and ‘H’ shown on Figure 7 for additional sampling.
Presumably post‐demolition lead screening results shown at Figure 5 (multiplied by a factor of 2) sufficiently
characterize the remainder of the site. Given imprecise correlation between XRF lead concentrations with the
laboratory lead concentrations of screening shown on Figure 5, it may be appropriate to conduct additional
sampling and analysis to define the areas of the site with soils which contain lead at concentrations of less than
400 ppm and do not require further remediation. Alternatively, such sampling can be conducted following site
remediation to assure neighbors that the site is safe. Providing this assurance is critical to the success of the effort,
in our view.
What portion of XRF samples should be confirmed by laboratory analysis?
To provide confidence to the public that XRF results are accurate, please establish an appropriate percentage of
XRF samples that should also receive confirmatory laboratory testing for lead. It is not clear in the work plan what
percentage of XRF samples will be submitted for laboratory analytical testing for lead, to confirm the validity of
XRF screening in all cases. The soil investigation at area ‘A’ appears to indicate all XRF readings exceeding 200 ppm
will be submitted for laboratory analysis. At area ‘H’ the report indicates that “… a portion of the sample from
each interval will be submitted for analytical testing …” for XRF samples exceeding 200 ppm.
Should other areas near the former Quonset Building be investigated?
The work plan includes sampling and analysis of a small area south of the Quonset Building, but not areas east and
north of the Quonset Building. Figure 5 indicates soils to the east of the Quonset Building exceed 400 ppm of lead.
Will the extent of this contamination be sufficiently defined by investigation proposed in the work plan? The
contamination appears to extend beyond the eastern property boundary.
Groundwater Investigation
If high VOCs are detected in boreholes near MW‐5, is further investigation warranted?
Two bedrock boreholes are proposed to be installed upgradient of MW‐5 for one‐time sampling, then abandoned.
If the samples contain high concentrations of VOCs, what is the next step to define the extent of the
contamination?
Should proposed boreholes near MW‐5 be replaced with monitoring wells?
Investigation, remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites are prone to time delays. Construction of
building on the site does not appear likely by spring 2014 given the variety of approvals required for issuance of a
building permit. Installation of monitoring wells instead of boreholes is recommended to gather additional
groundwater data. The monitoring wells can be abandoned when development is imminent, but will provide
useful data in the meantime and likely allow for at least a second round of data.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Cc: Chris Doroski (BEEI@health.stat.ny.us)
IFR Development LLC (ftravis@travishyde.com)
P. Grevelding (pgrevelding@grevpds.com)
CAG members