Alewife Study Group > W. R. Grace site > community feedback > Transcript: Dec. 16, 2004 Grace public meeting Search 

Dec. 16, 2004 public meeting at W. R. Grace
Transcript provided by W.R. Grace - from CD by LegaLink Boston (legalink.com)
Text-file version of transcript from same source.
LegaLink identifiers - Job Number: 63046; Witness ID: 114746


1

1 Volume: I 2 Pages: 1-135 3 4 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 5 6 7 PUBLIC MEETING RE: 8 W.R. GRACE & CO.-CONN. 9 SITE AT ALEWIFE 10 11 BEFORE: 12 Susan M. Jeghelian, Facilitator, MODR 13 Robert F. Jenkins, Ph.D., W.R. Grace 14 William W. Beck, Jr., LSP, Haley & Aldrich 15 Melissa McEwen, Haley & Aldrich 16 17 18 62 Whittemore Avenue 19 Cambridge, Massachusetts 20 December 16, 2004 21 7:00 p.m. 22 23 24 Reporter: Marianne Kusa-Ryll, RMR, CRR

2

1 I N D E X 2 Speakers: Page 3 4 Robert F. Jenkins 4 5 Susan M. Jeghelian 8 6 Stash Horowitz 15 7 William W. Beck, Jr. 17 8 Ronnie Millar 39 9 David Levitt 45 10 Joseph Josephs 46 11 Michael Nakagawa 55 12 Beverly Kogut 67 13 Judy Brewer 68 14 Steve Schnapp 72 15 Ralph Yoder 75 16 Tracy Walton 76 17 Hannah Goodwin 78 18 Denise Guerin 81 19 Jack Miano 87 20 Katherine Triantafillou 92 21 Daniel Kamman 96 22 Edmund Crouch 97 23 24 (continued)

3

1 I N D E X (continued) 2 Speakers: Page 3 Aram Hollman 98 4 Junji Morokuma 102 5 David Borrus 113 6 Kelly Matthews 122 7 Jesse Gordon 124 8 Representative Anne Paulsen 127 9 Lisa Birk 128 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

4

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 3 MS. JEGHELIAN: All right. We are 4 going to get going now. Please have a seat, and 5 welcome. 6 MR. JENKINS: Good evening. My name is 7 Bob Jenkins, the Vice President of Operations for 8 Grace Performance Chemicals, which is the division 9 headquarters here in Cambridge. I want to welcome 10 you folks here tonight. Thank you for taking the 11 time to join us. 12 Certainly, our intent is -- for this 13 evening is that this is a very informative meeting. 14 We are here to obviously try to walk folks through 15 this Massachusetts contingency plan, where we stand 16 with the folks who can answer those questions. I 17 hope this is a very good productive dialogue. Our 18 intent, obviously, is to present this information 19 as best as we can; to listen to your questions, and 20 as best as we can to try to address those. 21 What I would like to do first maybe is 22 introduce those who are here. First, from W.R. 23 Grace, myself obviously; Mario Favorito, who is our 24 Vice President, and also Chief Legal Counsel;

5

1 Robert Decker, who is responsible for marketing 2 communications, who I think is also here; from 3 Haley & Aldrich, Bill Beck will be doing the 4 presenting tonight as our Licensed Site 5 Professional, as well as Melissa McEwen from Haley 6 & Aldrich. Also, an individual who has joined us 7 tonight, Edmund. Edmund has worked on the risk 8 assessment. 9 Let's see. I think you've met, but our 10 moderator tonight is Susan Jeghelian, who is from 11 the Massachusetts Department of Dispute Resolution. 12 She is here to obviously help us have the most 13 productive discussion we can. She is assisted by 14 Mette Kreutzmann, who will also be trying to 15 capture some of the key points as best as we can to 16 make sure we do capture the ideas and get them up 17 here; so that if there is issues that don't get 18 addressed, we will make sure we try to capture 19 those. 20 At the request that we have had 21 recently, we've also asked Marianne Kusa -- did I 22 get that right -- Ryll to join us. She will be 23 taking the notes for tonight. So we will have 24 those available, I am told, probably within 10

6

1 days, so that everyone can have a complete copy of 2 exactly what is said. 3 Let's see. Tom Barry, also is here 4 someplace. Tom is Director of Facilities. Many of 5 you close to the neighborhood may know Tom. 6 Let's see. Also I believe we are joined 7 tonight here by Jack Miano from the Department of 8 Environmental Protection. 9 Representative Anne Paulsen, who has 10 also joined us tonight, thank you; and as well as 11 Matt McKenna from Senator Tolman's office. Matt, 12 thanks. 13 Are there any others tonight that I've 14 missed that we feel we need to make known; in other 15 words, those individuals who are here representing 16 either local government and so forth? 17 Okay. 18 AIMEE SMITH: I'm here from the 19 Cambridge Chronicle. 20 (Laughter.) 21 MR. JENKINS: A couple of key notes 22 just for our own safety tonight. We always begin 23 any public gathering like this here. There is 24 certainly a discussion about safety, and for

7

1 us -- for those of you who are new to this 2 facility, in the unlikely event that there is any 3 kind of emergency, or need to evacuate, fire alarms 4 and so forth, I would ask -- point out to you that 5 we can exit both by the back door here where many 6 of you may have come in. There are -- the stairway 7 goes down. Both stairways in this building will 8 exit at the back of the building. And also, I 9 assume half of us would want to exit by this door. 10 There is another stairway that goes down into the 11 same parking lot area, just for our own safety. 12 Let's see. We've had some feedback on 13 some of the agenda items for tonight. We've been 14 asked to extend the comment period. We've -- I 15 think that is a reasonable request. We have agreed 16 to extend it until Feb -- until January 20th. We 17 were asked for an additional 20 days. 18 We were also asked to include a brief 19 statement by some folks in the neighborhood, and I 20 think that's a very good request; and so after Bill 21 has had a chance to kind of walk people through 22 where we are in the Mass. Contingency Plan, we will 23 have a brief -- some statements from some of the 24 people in the neighborhood.

8

1 And again, we have been asked to 2 provide minutes of tonight's discussion, and we 3 will have those taken and available hopefully 4 within 10 days. 5 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. 6 MR. JENKINS: Any other questions or 7 comments at this point? 8 Now, I would like to introduce Susan 9 Jeghelian. 10 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Thank you, Bob. 11 Can everybody hear me okay? 12 I'm not used to using these mics. I 13 usually just come out and talk, so let me know if 14 you can't hear me. 15 I just as a facilitator for tonight's 16 meeting, I need to take just a few more minutes to 17 tell you a little bit about my role and the plan 18 for tonight's meeting, which Bob has already gone 19 over some of the points. I just want to make sure 20 everybody is clear. 21 I'm with a state agency, the Mass. 22 Office of Dispute Resolution, and we're housed at 23 UMass Boston, and what we do is we provide 24 impartial meeting facilitation and mediation

9

1 services for public agencies, the courts, 2 municipalities and citizens' groups, and we work 3 through a panel of private sector mediators and 4 trainer and facilitators, as well as our staff, and 5 we typically charge fees for services for our 6 services. 7 One of the key services we provide is 8 facilitating public involvement processes, such as 9 this one, and what we do is we -- what that 10 involves is we work with community groups, regulators, 11 business interests, and other citizens to design 12 and run these public meetings; and we typically 13 work with DEP on environmental matters, the 14 Department of Environmental Protection; we also 15 work with the USEPA, the Environmental Protection 16 Agency; and we've worked also with the Mass. 17 Highway Department, the Mass. Department of Public 18 Health and others. 19 How we came to be involved in the Grace 20 project was a few years ago when you had your last 21 round of public meetings in June of '99, DEP asked 22 us to come in and help facilitate those meetings, 23 which we did; and recently, last spring, Grace 24 asked me to come back and help structure and run

10

1 this meeting. 2 My -- the cost of my services tonight 3 are being covered by W.R. Grace as the responsible 4 party. The reason my agency can be involved is 5 because this whole project is under the Mass. 6 Contingency Plan, which is the environmental 7 protection laws, and the Department of Environmental 8 Protection oversight. 9 My agency has absolutely no interest in 10 the outcome of this project or this meeting. My 11 role here tonight is to run and manage the meeting 12 in a way that's going to be productive for 13 everybody, and enhance respectful communication and 14 dialogue on these very important issues here. So I 15 just wanted to be clear about that. 16 I have worked with W.R. Grace officials, 17 Haley & Aldrich. I have met with some of the 18 neighbors prior to this meeting, representatives of 19 the Alewife Study Group and Alewife neighbors; and 20 I have also talked with Jack Miano at DEP and some 21 of the city officials just to get some input to 22 structure this meeting in a way that is going to 23 address the community's concerns. 24 I will be moderating tonight. I will

11

1 be helping you all to agree on ground rules for the 2 discussion; and following the meeting, I will be 3 debriefing with Grace officials and Haley & 4 Aldrich, and also with representatives of the 5 neighbors and community, so that we can follow up 6 on any action items or issues that we need to that 7 come out of this meeting. So my role is kind of a 8 before, during and after. 9 I just want to make sure people were 10 clear on that before we begin. 11 Are there any questions? 12 Okay. There is an agency description 13 about my agency over on the table. What I would 14 like to do is just, Bob had mentioned the plan for 15 tonight's meeting. We're probably all aware that 16 there has been a delay in starting, and I just want 17 to let you know that we're going to adjust the 18 meeting time, so that we can build in some extra 19 time to take into account that we started late. 20 The stenographer, Marianne, has to 21 leave by ten o'clock, so we will just have to bear 22 that in mind, and we can do some checking in around 23 quarter of 10:00. 24 Please make sure you pick up the

12

1 handouts and follow the agenda with us. As -- as 2 Bob mentioned, we -- what we did is we tried to 3 plan a very short presentation for you so that we 4 can spend the majority of this meeting talking 5 about the key issues of concerns to the community. 6 So following the statement by the neighbors, we're 7 going to have a question and answer period. We're 8 going to try to have that be structured at the 9 beginning around some of the key areas of concern, 10 and then we will have it be more open for other 11 questions and topics after that. 12 Okay. And I also just want to mention 13 Haley & Aldrich has a staff person here, who is 14 helping to take some notes as well. We're going to 15 be developing a list of the questions that you ask 16 through the flip charts, through the transcript and 17 through those notes, and we're going to be using 18 that -- Haley & Aldrich will be using that to put 19 in their public comment section of the report that 20 they're presenting, so that this can be a vehicle 21 tonight for your comments. 22 We've given you some index cards over 23 at the table. Please write down your questions. 24 We'll make every effort to get to all of you

13

1 tonight; and if we can't, you can submit those 2 questions, and they will be incorporated and 3 responded to in that document. 4 I just want to now take a minute 5 to -- on the back side of your agenda are the 6 ground rules for tonight's meeting, and I would 7 just like to walk through them and see if this is 8 something we can all agree to follow. 9 Okay. I'm going to ask that everybody 10 sign the sign-in sheets. There were two sign-in 11 sheets, one for the meeting tonight and one for the 12 neighborhood group. The meeting -- in planning the 13 meeting, we just wanted to be able to have your 14 name and address in case we needed to mail any 15 additional materials to you, or contact you after 16 the meeting. 17 We would ask you to please refer to the 18 agenda and the handouts following the -- to follow 19 the meeting format and presentation. There is a 20 full handout on Bill Beck's presentation. 21 Please hold your questions until after 22 the presentation. Bill has made an effort to build 23 in and anticipate the topics of concern and 24 interest in his presentation, so you may find some

14

1 of your questions are going to be answered as 2 you -- as we go along. Okay. Then you can use the 3 index cards to track. 4 We ask you to please seek recognition 5 by raising your hand, and I will get to you as soon 6 as possible. Please wait until I acknowledge you. 7 Please don't interrupt other people when they're 8 speaking. We're going to try to have this be as 9 civilized and helpful as possible. 10 I have a microphone. We have set up a 11 microphone here in the middle of room. I'm not 12 sure if we need it, but if we're having trouble 13 hearing you, we might ask you to come up to the 14 microphone, if you don't mind; and if you -- if 15 it's easier, I can walk over and share my 16 microphone with you to make sure you can be heard. 17 And finally, two more things. Just 18 please try to limit your questions to one at a 19 time, maybe with a follow-up so that we can share 20 the air time with others in the room. 21 And, finally, and I think this is the 22 most important piece here, we know that these 23 issues are very serious; that people feel strongly 24 about them, passionately. They are very important

15

1 to this neighborhood and community and to Grace, 2 and we know that because they are so emotion laden, 3 sometimes the emotions can affect the way we 4 behave. So I'm going to ask if we can all try 5 tonight -- we may not always agree with what's 6 being said, but could we all please try to listen 7 and understand each other. That's really what the 8 goal will be tonight, not agreement, but listening 9 and understanding; and that we use respectful 10 language when we speak; and that we try to avoid 11 personal attacks. 12 Does that sound like a set of ground 13 rules people can follow for the meeting tonight? 14 I see heads nodding. 15 Are there any questions now before we 16 start the meeting? 17 Yes. 18 MR. HOROWITZ: Yes, I'm Stash Horowitz 19 with the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods. 20 Is this part of the formal process? I 21 missed the very, very beginning. 22 MS. JEGHELIAN: Yes, I believe it is 23 part of the formal process, right. 24 MR. HOROWITZ: Is the DEP present

16

1 tonight; are they -- 2 MS. JEGHELIAN: Jack Miano right here. 3 MR. HOROWITZ: Oh, hi, Jack. 4 MS. JEGHELIAN: If you want to come 5 forward -- 6 MR. HOROWITZ: I'm fine. That is all 7 the questions I have. 8 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. There are some 9 other chairs here. For those of you over here who 10 would like to come over, we do have some more 11 chairs. Okay. And please let us know if you are 12 having trouble hearing. 13 MR. BARRY: I may have missed it. I 14 don't know if we announced it. If anybody has to 15 leave early, it's a little bit confusing being in 16 the building -- 17 MS. JEGHELIAN: Oh, yes. 18 MR. BARRY: -- we will have some 19 escorts in the back of the room. 20 MS. JEGHELIAN: Escorts in the back of 21 the room, if you need to leave early so we can help 22 guide you out of the building. 23 Yes. 24 FEMALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Can we

17

1 come back in later? 2 MS. JEGHELIAN: Can you come -- can 3 they come back in as well, other people -- leave 4 the door open? 5 MR. BARRY: There will be a security 6 guard at that door, yes. Yeah. 7 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Great. Any more 8 housekeeping before we hear from Bill? 9 Okay. Then, Tom, if you could hit the 10 lights, close all the lights, just the front so you 11 can see the screen. 12 Did everybody get a copy of the 13 handouts? 14 Okay. 15 MR. BECK: Good evening. Can everyone 16 hear me all right? 17 Okay. I am Bill Beck. I am the LSP 18 for the W.R. Grace site, and I'll take you through 19 the presentation. 20 The purpose of tonight's meeting is to 21 review the MCP process, to discuss the role of the 22 licensed site professional, to present the 23 outcomes, or the response action outcome statement, 24 and to review --

18

1 MS. JEGHELIAN: Excuse me. I'm sorry, 2 Bill. Could you put your microphone on your tie. 3 MR. BECK: Sure. 4 MS. JEGHELIAN: People are having a 5 hard time hearing. Let's just test that out before 6 we... 7 MR. BECK: Okay. Is that better? 8 MS. JEGHELIAN: Right. Okay. Thank 9 you. 10 Just let us know if you can't hear. 11 MR. BECK: Okay. The last -- the last 12 item is to review the activity and use limitation. 13 The conclusion I want to make right up 14 front are the results of our investigations are 15 that there is no significant risk to the -- to the 16 public as a result of current site conditions. So 17 the site, as it stands today, doesn't present a 18 risk to the neighborhood, so that's good news, and 19 I wanted to make that statement right up front. 20 I also wanted to let you know that in 21 your packet of information that we've handed out to 22 you are a list of acronyms and definitions. The 23 MCP is loaded with, you know, such acronyms, and 24 you can lapse into, or I can lapse into, what is

19

1 MCP speech. I'll try to speak in generic terms and 2 in plain English language. Someone jolt me if I 3 start speaking in alphabet soup. I'll try to avoid 4 that. 5 Okay. With regard to the Massachusetts 6 Contingency Plan, there is a set of regulations 7 that were established under Chapter 21E of the 8 Mass. General Laws. It's a risk-based, phased 9 process, which is implemented to clean up hazardous 10 waste sites in the State of Massachusetts. So risk 11 based, and it's phased. 12 In your handout is a fact sheet that we 13 have pulled off the DEP website. On the back page 14 of that, it lists various phases of investigations. 15 Haley & Aldrich added the phases and the RAO to 16 this fact sheet for further clarity, and you can 17 see the various phases listed there. 18 So you need to -- to implement -- here. 19 You need to implement Phase I of the work in your 20 initial investigation before you can commence with 21 Phase II, but one misconception that seems to be 22 out there is that you need to complete all phases 23 of work before reaching the response action outcome 24 statement, and I'll get into that in a -- in a

20

1 minute. 2 Excuse me. 3 I want to take a minute to talk about 4 where the W.R. Grace site stands in the Massachusetts 5 Contingency Plan process, and it can be a bit 6 confusing, because there has been two sets of 7 investigations that have been going on over time. 8 The first has been oil and hazardous material 9 investigations. The second has been the asbestos 10 part of the investigation. 11 The initial work done on the site was 12 done in the early '80s in anticipation of 13 redevelopment of the site, and this was done for 14 the oil and hazardous material; and essentially, a 15 Phase I and Phase II investigation was done on the 16 site in '88. 17 It then was updated in '95 -- '94, '95, 18 and again in '98; and ultimately, the risk 19 characterization was updated to bring it into 20 compliance with then current MCP processes. 21 Over the period of time in which the 22 investigations are taking place there has been two 23 updates to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. As 24 a result of the investigation of oil and hazardous

21

1 material, we found that one portion of the site 2 down near the Alewife head house, there were some 3 elevated levels of petroleum products, which 4 required remediation. This caused us to move on to 5 Phase III for the oil and hazardous material 6 investigation, and we undertook a feasibility study 7 to assess what are the potential remedial actions 8 that could be conducted to address the petroleum 9 that was in the ground. 10 We concluded and recommended that the 11 area be excavated and the soil be removed, because 12 we thought it was a final solution, and it would 13 cure the problem once and for all. At a public 14 meeting such as this, it was suggested by the 15 neighbors that perhaps we didn't want to do this. 16 There is potential asbestos present. It would be 17 easier and more acceptable to the neighbors if we 18 did something in situ; and by in situ, it means 19 doing a bioremediation where we degrade the 20 petroleum in place in the ground without any 21 excavation and without any potential disturbance to 22 the soil, which could potentially have generated 23 asbestos dust. 24 If I can just take a minute. Sorry I'm

22

1 so dry. 2 That is what the public process is all 3 about. It's about we thought we had a good idea, 4 and through a process such as this, the -- our 5 approach was revised to be more sensitive to -- to 6 the neighborhood. 7 So at the end of Phase III for the oil 8 and hazardous materials that were present in the 9 ground, we're able to reach a condition of no 10 significant risk, because the petroleum products 11 had, in fact, been degraded. 12 With respect to asbestos, those 13 investigations started in 1998; and in 1999, a data 14 report was prepared for asbestos, which is 15 essentially equivalent to a Phase I report in the 16 MCP. Ultimately, we went on and conducted a 17 Phase II characterization of the site and a risk 18 assessment for asbestos specifically, and we're 19 able to conclude there was no significant risk as a 20 result of asbestos, as long as the subsurface soils 21 remained in place and were not disturbed. 22 So at the end of Phase II, we're able 23 to make that conclusion, no significant risk, and 24 didn't need to go on to Phase III.

23

1 The site closure, or the response 2 action outcome, I'll get more into that in a 3 minute, is a subject of tonight's meeting, and 4 it's -- it pulls together the oil and hazardous 5 material work and the asbestos work and does a risk 6 characterization of not only the asbestos, but of 7 the oil and hazardous material in one -- in one 8 report. So it pulls everything -- everything 9 together into one document. 10 Other aspects of the MCP process 11 includes the role of the licensed site professional; 12 and in my role, I'm the individual who the state 13 has licensed to oversee waste site clean up under 14 the MCP, but I make sure that the work is being 15 done in compliance with the regulations and issue 16 reports. 17 The requirements to become an LSP, 18 there's an educational requirement. You need 19 a -- you need to be a degreed professional in such 20 fields as engineering, geology, or the environmental 21 sciences. For instance, a lawyer cannot become an 22 LSP just because they have a law degree. You need 23 a certain level of experience. You need a minimum 24 of eight years of experience to even apply to take

24

1 the exam. 2 The exam, once you are approved to take 3 it, is an eight-hour exam and involves and tests 4 your knowledge about the technical aspects of waste 5 site clean-up and the regulatory program, the MCP. 6 There is also a continuing education 7 requirement that I need to work on constantly to 8 maintain my -- to maintain my license. 9 I have a master's level in geology. I 10 have over 30 years of experience in doing 11 investigations such as this, and I've been an LSP 12 since 1993 when the program started. Excuse me. 13 The public involvement process, again, 14 is what we're here to hear tonight, and it's part 15 of the regulations that we're promulgated to keep 16 the public informed and involved in the -- in the 17 process. 18 There has been a number of activities 19 that have taken place since 1999 with the last 20 public meeting that occurred. There have been four 21 rounds of groundwater samples that have been taken 22 at the site; although that's not specifically 23 required as part of the MCP process, they were 24 filed in the repositories and sent to DEP.

25

1 There was a Phase III remedial action 2 for petroleum contamination on the site that I 3 talked about a minute ago and a bioremediation of 4 that soil undertaken down around the Alewife head 5 house. 6 There was a final asbestos data report 7 that had been prepared and put in the repository, 8 and there was two utility trench excavations that 9 were undertaken. The first was in 2001, and it was 10 one of the first investigations that took place 11 under the asbestos ordinance in the -- in the City 12 of Cambridge, and I think was the first attempt 13 program that was undertaken. 14 The USEPA conducted a site investigation, 15 and the ATSDR, the Agency for Toxic Substance and 16 Disease Registry, did a health assessment of the 17 property, and they concluded that there is no risk; 18 that the site posed undercurrent conditions, as 19 long as subsurface soils were not -- were not 20 disturbed. 21 MALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: How deep is 22 subsurface? 23 MR. BECK: I'm sorry? 24 MALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: How deep is

26

1 the subsurface? 2 MR. BECK: Below -- anything below six 3 inches, if I remember that right. 4 And ultimately there was a Phase II 5 Comprehensive Site Assessment and Risk 6 Characterization done for -- for asbestos on the 7 site, and that was the subject of public comment, 8 and that was finalized in January of this year. 9 So what is a Response Action Outcome 10 Statement by EPA definition? 11 It's the point in the MCP process at 12 which you achieve a condition of no significant 13 risk. 14 As I indicated before, that point with 15 asbestos was at Phase II, and that point for oil 16 and hazardous material was at the end of Phase III. 17 To achieve an RAO, you need to broadly 18 satisfy these -- these conditions. You need to 19 evaluate the nature and extent of contamination in 20 a manner such that you can characterize risk. You 21 need to complete remedial actions, if they're 22 required. They were required in the case of the 23 oil and hazardous material, because of the levels 24 of petroleum that were present in the soil.

27

1 You need to conduct a Risk 2 Characterization to demonstrate no significant risk 3 on the site, and you need to implement an Activity 4 and Use Limitation, a deed restriction, if it's 5 necessary to implement controls. 6 So if there is a problem there, you've 7 got to put a deed restriction on the project. 8 So what's a Risk Characterization? 9 It's a tool by which we are able to 10 make decisions with regard to waste site clean up. 11 We look at human health. We look at public 12 welfare, safety and -- and the environment. In 13 essence, it's a -- it's a piece of the regulation. 14 It's specified in the MCP, and there is a set of 15 guidelines as to how to conduct this, and it's a 16 condition that DEP requires us -- us to undertake. 17 If you need a condition of No 18 Significant Risk, then remediation is not 19 necessary. Remember, I said this was a risk-based, 20 phased process. 21 So let me look at it at W.R. Grace, 22 the Risk Characterization. First, we look at who 23 would be potentially exposed to contaminants on the 24 property. For Grace, for the Grace site, we looked

28

1 at adjacent residents, office workers, future 2 construction workers possibly, utility workers, 3 visitors, children and adults. 4 Then we looked at what the current uses 5 are. All the current uses obviously include 6 office, commercial, and R and D activities on the 7 property. And then we had to look at future uses, 8 what are the foreseeable uses that could occur in 9 the future. As a worst case, we took a 10 hypothetical construction project. 11 Then finally, we looked at the 12 components, which compounds, potentially, people 13 could be exposed to. These included asbestos, 14 petroleum naphthaline in the soil, and naphthaline 15 in groundwater. 16 The results, as I indicated, were that 17 undercurrent conditions, there was no significant 18 risk. 19 So what does this say? Air in and 20 around the site, any asbestos or naphthaline levels 21 were well below safety standards and risk 22 standards, and, in fact, were typical of what you 23 find in an urban setting. 24 Groundwater at the site is not flowing

29

1 beneath your homes. It's -- so any contamination 2 that's in the groundwater isn't flowing beneath -- 3 beneath your houses. 4 What we did when we looked at the 5 future conditions, and as I said, the future 6 conditions were going into the subsurface, 7 disturbing soils with absolutely no controls. That 8 is how you test some of the worst case. And what 9 we found was that if you didn't have controls in 10 place, you could create odors that would be 11 unacceptable; you could expose construction workers 12 to potential contamination, along with adjacent 13 residents, that would be unacceptable. We found 14 that if you dug a hole in the ground and created a 15 big pile of soil, that soil could create a 16 potential risk, due to dust or contaminants that 17 would be emitted from that pile. 18 However, we conclude that those three 19 risks could be controlled by an activity in use 20 limitation on the site, which I'll describe now. 21 First, an Activity and Use Limitation 22 by definition is a tool for controlling exposures 23 in order to maintain a condition of No Significant 24 Risk.

30

1 What is it? 2 It's a deed restriction that's placed 3 on the property. It runs with the land, not with 4 the property owner, and so if the property -- if 5 this property were ever to be sold, future owners 6 would be obliged to the same conditions as we would 7 be placing on the deed today. 8 In real estate transactions, deeds are 9 looked at all the time. These things come up on a 10 regular basis. They are checked. I get calls from 11 time to time, because people find Activity and Use 12 Limitations that are placed on deeds that cause 13 them to ask questions as to why it's there, and 14 they tried to get some more background. 15 The document itself is usually pretty 16 self-explanatory. The AUL tells you what is 17 allowable on the site, what's restricted on the 18 site, and it also establishes process for 19 control -- for controlling risk. 20 Now, what's allowable risk? 21 Certainly, uses similar to what the 22 site's currently being used for. You can do 23 landscaping; you can rake the lawn; you can mow the 24 grass; and you can excavate soil, if you do it in

31

1 accordance with the restrictions and the 2 obligations that are in the AUL. What's restricted 3 on site residences are restricted. Schools and the 4 like are restricted, as is -- 5 MALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Restricted 6 means they are not allowed? 7 MR. BECK: Pardon me. 8 MALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Being 9 restricted means they are not allowed? 10 MR. BECK: They are not allowed per 11 the -- per the restrictions that I would be placing 12 on the property, and active recreational uses. 13 There is requirements in the AUL for 14 what happens if there is a change of conditions 15 planned in the future. So if a development were to 16 occur on the property, the site would be subject to 17 the regulatory process under the MCP, and any 18 local, state or federal regulations that are in 19 place. Obligations and conditions of the AUL would 20 still need to be followed. So everything that's 21 specified in the AUL would be required on the site. 22 You would need a soil and dust and odor 23 management plan. You would need a health and 24 safety plan; in fact, multiple plans actually. You

32

1 need air monitoring plans on going forward for 2 any -- any disturbance. 3 Let's take a look at what would be 4 required typically underneath -- underneath each of 5 these. The health and safety plan is to protect 6 the -- the workers and the abutting residents and 7 the general public during any disturbance of the 8 property. The health and safety plan would need to 9 be prepared by a Certified Industrial Hygienist, 10 who is an individual, who is familiar with the 11 health effects with an LSP, and that is a little 12 change to what is currently proposed in the AUL 13 that has been circulated in draft. The current 14 language, I think, says Certified Industrial 15 Hygienist, or other qualified individual. 16 Well, in this case, when you're 17 thinking an abutter, we are going to tighten that 18 up and suggest that it be a Certified Industrial 19 Hydrol -- excuse me -- Certified Industrial 20 Hygienist and an LSP. 21 It also establishes that an 22 OSHA-qualified Health and Safety Coordinator be 23 present on site. This is a typical requirement of 24 a health and safety plan; and that person is

33

1 responsible for seeing that the precautions taken 2 are proper to protect the health, safety and 3 welfare of the -- of the public and the workers on 4 the site; and that it be sensitive to any sensitive 5 human receptors that are in and around the site. 6 That person is also someone, who is 7 responsible for convening regular meetings of the 8 people involved in construction for site-disturbing 9 activity on a daily basis. 10 The AUL requires a soil, dust and odor 11 management plans to be prepared. These, again, are 12 to protect both the workers on the site and the 13 public from contaminants that would be present in 14 soil, and potentially generated by the result of 15 dust or vapors. 16 Typically, dust management and soil 17 management techniques involve such thing as phased 18 control or excavation. They don't open the whole 19 site up at once. You open limited areas, so you're 20 minimizing the amount of potential dust-generating 21 soil that are present. You can limit stockpiles. 22 You can wet soils. You can cover them. You can 23 use water sprays. You can use water sprays with 24 additives. You can do tenting. You can do

34

1 encapsulation of the soil. So there is a lot of 2 different types of processes. 3 You can also control odors on the site 4 through, again, phased excavations, so you don't 5 have large areas that would be creating vapors. 6 You can encapsulate it; and again, you can use 7 tents over the top to control odors. 8 Our experience has been in dealing with 9 a site such as this, and larger, that these -- these 10 precautions do, in fact, work quite effectively. 11 These requirements under the AUL for 12 implementation of an air monitor in play. This is 13 to confirm that the protective methods are working. 14 You can't just rely. You've got to verify that 15 they are, in fact, being protective. 16 They include doing such things as 17 background monitoring before construction, or any 18 work begins. It would involve perimeter 19 monitoring. It involves monitoring right at the 20 site where the work is actually being undertaken. 21 Again, our -- you then establish both 22 threshold values and action levels under which work 23 stoppage will occur. Now, our experience has shown 24 that the action level is half the threshold level.

35

1 Let me get into English again. Sorry. 2 If there is a level at which potential 3 risk will occur, we set the point to stop work at 4 half the amount, so that there is no potential for 5 any exposures to take place. Our experience, 6 again, shows that these types of precautions are 7 effective in monitoring the effectiveness of dust 8 control of soil management. 9 There has been some questions as to why 10 a lot of detail isn't being specified in the AUL 11 with regard to these plans. Well, to be most 12 protective, these plans need to be developed with a 13 specific activity in mind. Let me give you an 14 exaggerated set of circumstances. 15 How you would approach monitoring and 16 limiting and controlling soil and dust for 17 constructing a small tool shed that was 10 by 10 is 18 different than what you might do if you were 19 constructing three stories of underground parking, 20 and that would be different than constructing a 21 tennis court. They all use different types of 22 equipment. They all dig through different types of 23 dust. They all have different levels of slowly 24 disturbing activity.

36

1 So you've got to formulate plans based 2 on the specifics of what's being done on the site, 3 as well as what equipment is being used. 4 Secondly, the plan would have to 5 be -- plans would have to be developed for each 6 specific intrusive activity that takes place on the 7 site. 8 Also, DEP is in the process of 9 finalizing its regulations with respect to asbestos 10 and soil; and those regulations, as they come 11 forward, are guidelines, are going to include the 12 best management practices. 13 Above all, what you want an AUL to be 14 is timeless, and what you want to do is specify the 15 plans need to be developed based on best practices 16 that are in effect at the time. So, therefore, by 17 developing specific plans that might be appropriate 18 in 2004, they may not be appropriate or the right 19 plans for things that are going on in 2010, '15 or 20 '30. So an AUL needs to be -- needs to be 21 timeless. 22 With regard to communications, Grace 23 wants to work and is willing to work with the 24 community. It would like to -- Grace would like to

37

1 establish a plan for regular communications with 2 the neighbors and the community. If a development 3 were ever to occur on the site, and none is 4 planned, Grace makes the commitment tonight to 5 sit down and discuss with the neighbors any of 6 those plans prior to submitting them to any 7 government or regulatory agency. 8 In addition to that commitment, there 9 is also a formal process, which I know you're all 10 aware of, that includes both building issues and 11 the MCP issues. Let me get to the building first. 12 There is, of course, planning is zoning, and the 13 Building Department gets involved in these. 14 There's floodplains and wetlands issues on the 15 site, so the Conservation Commission will certainly 16 be involved in anything that goes on on this site; 17 and the Cambridge Asbestos Protection Ordinance, 18 Public Health would be involved with anything that 19 goes on on the property. 20 With regard to the MCP going forward, 21 any work on the site, by the way of construction, 22 would require a plan under the MCP plan. This 23 could probably be done as a release abatement 24 measure plan, a RAM Plan, as it's called, and for

38

1 any interest of activities that would be -- that 2 would take place on the property. 3 Also, the public involvement process 4 would be reinstituted for those intrusive 5 activities, so we would be back discussing -- 6 presenting plans at a meeting such as this, if they 7 were to occur in the future. Those documents and 8 anything prepared would be subject to public 9 comment and input. 10 Our conclusions, again, in a little bit 11 more detail. A condition of no significant risk 12 exists for current site conditions at the property. 13 So the current property, as it stands today, is not 14 creating a risk to the public. With the 15 implementation of an activity and use limitation, 16 the deed restriction on the site and implementation 17 that controls, there continues to be no risk, if 18 there is site-disturbing activities. 19 There is no additional remedial action 20 that is necessary on the site as it stands today, 21 and have we have met the requirements for the 22 Response Action Outcome Statement. 23 What the next steps will be: The 24 public comment process will continue; the -- as

39

1 mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, there is 2 an extension of the comment period through the 20th 3 of January. We are going to develop a list of key 4 questions and comments as a result of this meeting; 5 there will be a transcript of the meeting prepared; 6 and as Susan mentioned and Bob mentioned, there 7 will be a debrief with Susan, both with W.R. Grace 8 and with the community. 9 With that, thank you. I appreciate 10 your time and listening to me. 11 MS. JEGHELIAN: Thank you, Bill. 12 Tom, can we have the lights, please. 13 Thank you all for your attention during 14 that. We are now going to have a brief statement 15 by the neighbors. Ronnie Millar, on behalf of 16 Alewife Study Group and Alewife neighbors, is going 17 to start. 18 Ronnie, would you like to use my 19 microphone? 20 MR. MILLAR: Sure. 21 Good evening, everyone. 22 Can you hear me? 23 Okay. Good. My name is Ronnie Millar 24 from Jackson Street, and a member of the Alewife

40

1 Study Group, and I want to give a very brief just 2 response to the presentation this evening. Two 3 other neighbors want to come in behind me and come 4 in with some more technical details, Joe Josephs 5 and Mike Nakagawa. 6 I also just want to just take a brief 7 moment and thank you all for coming out here, and 8 we're all here to, you know, we're all very 9 concerned about this site and this development on 10 this cold winter night, and we really appreciate 11 you coming out. I want to thank Representative 12 Anne Paulsen; Senator Tolman is here; Jack Miano 13 for all of your help over the years; and, Susan, 14 for your help in facilitating the meeting; Stash 15 Horowitz from the Association of Cambridge 16 Neighborhoods has been a great help also. 17 So as I said, I am representing the 18 Alewife Study Group and also Alewife Neighbors, 19 Inc. We're a group of concerned neighbors that 20 have been tracking this site over the last 10 21 years, and you'll identify -- some of us are 22 wearing name tags with green stickers. That's the 23 Alewife Study Group members, and if you would like 24 to get further information on this site, volunteer,

41

1 or whatever, get on our e-mail list, we would -- just 2 come up to one of us, and we'll give you some 3 information. 4 Please sign in to our green sign 5 in -- sign-in sheet there at the -- on the way in. 6 I'm a parent of two lovely kids, two 7 young boys, and -- who are -- and we really want to 8 live in this neighborhood and stay in this 9 neighborhood, and we're very, very concerned about 10 the state of this site, the volume and the 11 contamination of asbestos and other contaminants on 12 this site. And I'm just -- you know, we want to 13 stay in the neighborhood. We're homeowners. We 14 want to stay here, but I have to tell you that I am 15 really, really freaked out by the extent of the 16 contamination on this site here; and when we're 17 talking about future construction and so forth, it 18 just is really scary stuff. 19 And, you know, and the message just 20 really that we want to really just relay to W.R. 21 Grace this evening and to the DEP is that as 22 neighbors, we really want to work with you. We 23 really want, as you're preparing for future 24 construction projects, we want to work with you on

42

1 this whole plan and get through this process, but 2 we absolutely need long-term protection from 3 asbestos. You know, there was a lot of talk there 4 this evening, but I didn't hear the word "asbestos" 5 mentioned too many times this evening, and in the 6 risk characterization especially. There is a 400 7 page document and -- that talks about the volume of 8 the asbestos and so forth. 9 I just want to also say that the 10 neighborhood groups have hired technical assistance 11 on this matter. This is such a serious issue that 12 we have hired an environmental consultant to 13 provide some respute -- some response help with the 14 response to this presentation. 15 We've also hired legal counsel. This 16 is a very, very serious issue, and we absolutely 17 need all the help we can get. We have hired 18 counsel Mark Roberts to really help us on this. So 19 just as neighbors, please be aware of that, that 20 we're taking this really seriously. We absolutely 21 need protection from asbestos. 22 We want continued community involvement. 23 We want adequate notice. Whenever you are about to 24 do your plans for a span for construction and so

43

1 forth, we need good notice to be able to say, you 2 know, to get involved in this, and that's because 3 they're our neighbors within 200 yards of this site 4 here. It's so important that ASG and ANI and the 5 neighbors are informed about this. 6 We want qualified oversight, and I 7 noticed that Mr. Beck put in some recent changes to 8 the presentation that an LSP will be involved. It 9 just can't be anybody that's familiar with these 10 contaminants. It has to be a LSP, and your work 11 tonight really proves that we need someone with 12 your qualifications involved throughout this 13 process. 14 We want -- we want W.R. Grace to follow 15 the Cambridge Asbestos Protection Ordinance. That 16 stands very clear on how to work with -- with 17 asbestos that's in the soil, and we absolutely need 18 you to stay within the, you know, the guidance of 19 the Asbestos Protection Ordinance. 20 We want you to correctly document the 21 source and the volume of the asbestos contamination. 22 We really, you know, have gone through, and my two 23 neighbors will look into this in some more detail, 24 but there are 600,000 pounds by our estimation,

44

1 600,000 pounds worth of asbestos in that site, and 2 we're very concerned about that. We're very 3 concerned about the source of it also. It's not 4 just from the highway, from brake liners of the 5 highway, or from demolished buildings. There is 6 other sources of asbestos in there, and we want you 7 to document exactly where that asbestos is on 8 the ground and where it came from. What is the 9 source of it. And we'll go into more details later 10 on. 11 We have maps that show the exact areas 12 where some of this contamination is. When we did 13 our samples, our split samples, there was -- there 14 wasn't chunks of asbestos. We didn't find any 15 chunks of asbestos, but there was dirt, handfuls of 16 dirt; and whenever these dirt samples come back 17 from the testing, it had like 15, 20 percent hits 18 of asbestos. It's so -- it's so broken down into 19 fibers that you can't see it. 20 Basically, the bottom line is we want 21 to work in relationship with W.R. Grace, but we 22 absolutely have to have protection from the 23 asbestos that's in there; and we want you to be 24 honest and work with us. So that's -- that's where

45

1 we're at. 2 I would like to just introduce -- 3 DAVID LEVITT: Can I ask a basic 4 question first? 5 In order to understand this meeting, we 6 were just told that the purpose is to review, 7 present and review. 8 Well, what changes are being presented? 9 I didn't hear anything about that. 10 MR. MILLAR: You want to hear some 11 details now, sir? 12 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. And, sir, could 13 you please state your name. The transcriber is 14 trying to -- 15 DAVID LEVITT: My name is David Levitt. 16 I'm a neighbor, a North Cambridge neighbor. 17 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Thank you, David. 18 Okay. 19 MR. MILLAR: So I'm going to ask two 20 neighbors to just come with some just very brief 21 points exactly answering your point -- what we're 22 looking for here. 23 Joe Josephs lives in Kassul Park. You 24 can ask Joe. And then Mike Nakagawa is going to

46

1 follow Joe with some details. 2 Thank you. 3 MR. JOSEPHS: Can I use this microphone? 4 MS. JEGHELIAN: Sure, Joe. 5 Do you want to come up here? That way 6 you can face everybody. 7 MR. JOSEPHS: Is this on? 8 MS. JEGHELIAN: Is that on, Tom? 9 MR. BARRY: There's a switch right on 10 the top. There you go. 11 MR. JOSEPHS: Hello, Cambridge. 12 I guess, first of all, I would like to 13 express my gratitude to W.R. Grace for hosting the 14 meeting this evening, and I would like to express 15 my gratitude to Susan for providing the facilitation. 16 I would like to do a couple of things, 17 if I could. The first is one of our neighbors, 18 David Bass, could not be here this evening, but as 19 is his -- his usual habit, he prepared some very 20 meaningful comments that I would like to have read 21 into the record. And there are some terms in what 22 he has written that are technical terms, one of 23 which is ACMs, which means asbestos-containing 24 materials. That means building remnants, chunks of

47

1 material containing asbestos. Another is PLM, 2 which stands for polarized light microscopy, which 3 is an analytical method for examination of asbestos 4 fibers, usually associated with bulk samples, and 5 it's particularly good or useful for quantitation. 6 Trans -- TEM, or transmission electron microscopy, 7 which is a methodology used for a more finite view 8 of what's -- what the sample is. And I think 9 that's it for the technical terms. 10 But these are David's comments. It 11 says, Comments by David Bass, neighbor and member 12 of Alewife Study Group, North Street, Cambridge. 13 I should point out that Mr. Bass is an 14 environmental scientist and has had substantial 15 experience with respect to remediation of sites, 16 and also with respect to risk characterization. In 17 fact, one of the sites that he worked on was the 18 Raybestos -- one of the Raybestos sites, and a 19 asbestos horribly contaminated asbestos site in 20 Connecticut. 21 And these are Mr. Bass' comments. W.R. 22 Grace's site investigation responses to 23 contamination and proposed AUL are for the most 24 part reasonable, responsible, and protective of

48

1 human health and the environment. In particular, I 2 support: (A) the extensiveness of W.R. Grace's 3 site investigation, particularly regarding 4 asbestos; (B) W.R. Grace's recognition that 5 disturbance of the soil could pose unacceptable 6 health risks to neighbors and workers, due to 7 mobilization of asbestos, as well as adverse affect 8 on the welfare of the neighbors due to mobilization 9 of odiferous chemicals such as naphthaline; (C) 10 W.R. Grace's use of in situ bioremediation to 11 address areas of greatest hydrocarbon contamination, 12 to minimize disturbance of potential mobilization 13 of asbestos contaminated soil; (D) W.R. Grace's 14 conclusion that the site is not suitable for 15 residential use, recreational, agricultural, 16 education or childcare uses; and (E) W.R. Grace's 17 plan to use aggressive dust and odor containment 18 technologies during site disturbance, and to adhere 19 to all state and municipal regulations regarding 20 disturbance of asbestos-contaminated soil. 21 There really is a huge amount of 22 asbestos at the site, at least in the hundreds of 23 thousands of pounds. W.R. Grace reports that 24 approximately 10 percent of soil samples between a

49

1 half and five feet below grade had measured 2 asbestos concentrations exceeding 1 percent by both 3 the PLM and the TEM methods. W.R. Grace reported 4 the average asbestos concentration in this depth 5 interval at one-half -- excuse me -- .5 percent. 6 And this is on page 57 of their filing. This is 7 equivalent to about 100,000 pounds of asbestos per 8 acre. 9 The potential consequences of 10 disturbing this much asbestos are severe. W.R. 11 Grace is right to advise caution, and the neighbors 12 are right to be concerned. 13 I do not believe that W.R. Grace has 14 presented adequate support for its conclusion that 15 there is no reason to suspect that bulk asbestos -- 16 excuse me -- bulk disposal of asbestos has occurred 17 at the site. This is a direct quote from W.R. 18 Grace, "Asbestos contamination of the site is due 19 to demolition of structures comprised of asbestos 20 containing building materials." That was a 21 statement made by Grace on page 11 of their filing. 22 It is clear that asbestos present at 23 the site is due to at least two sources. EPA 24 personnel were able to identify suspected -- excuse

50

1 me -- a few pieces -- a few suspected pieces of 2 asbestos-containing building materials. On the 3 surface, simply by visual observation and 4 laboratory evaluation confirmed that these had 5 asbestos concentrations of approximately 15 percent. 6 However, asbestos-contaminated soil found at depth 7 in the 1998 investigation, page 20 of their filing, 8 had comparable asbestos concentrations, but all the 9 environmental professions present, including 10 myself, agreed that it looked like dirt. That is 11 to say, not asbestos-containing materials. 12 There was absolutely no evidence of ACM 13 in the subsurface soil, a fact which W.R. Grace 14 acknowledges on page 44 prior to dismissing its 15 significance. We were all stunned when the dirt 16 turned out to be heavily contaminated with asbestos. 17 So there is another source of asbestos 18 at the site, and it is almost certainly bulk 19 disposal. W.R. Grace contends that most of the 20 Dewey & Almy asbestos handling was performed at the 21 Walpole site -- this is to be found on page 6 -- but 22 the magnitude of the Walpole site and the asbestos 23 contamination there is staggering. Just being less 24 than Walpole says little, and W.R. Grace has never

51

1 quantified how much bulk asbestos may have been 2 handled at the Cambridge site by Dewey & Almy. 3 Given the quantity of asbestos in the 4 soil, and absence of visibly identifiable ACM in 5 the subsurface, it was probably a lot. Therefore, 6 unless W.R. Grace can provide any forensic evidence 7 that the asbestos, between a half a foot and five 8 feet below grade, is from asbestos-containing 9 materials, it must be treated as if it were due to 10 bulk disposal of asbestos. 11 Those are Mr. Bass' comments. And I 12 might also add that in some of the previous 13 comments, I believe, that were made by Mr. Beck, 14 from my reading of his comment, or my hearing of 15 his comment, he made it seem as if the in situ 16 option for the 21E obligation near the head house 17 was something that W.R. Grace themselves chose to 18 do, and in a sense they did, but the recommendation 19 was made by Mr. Bass at one of the previous public 20 meetings, and I applaud W.R. Grace for understanding 21 the wisdom of Mr. Bass' recommendations. 22 I still don't understand why, since 23 this was a much more health protective and sensible 24 thing to do, in situ, as opposed to soil removal

52

1 and disturbance, why the city's health people, or 2 the DEP, or USEPA, or any of the other authorities, 3 could not have proposed this option and explained 4 the beneficial nature of it as these things were 5 being considered. Why, in other words, does it 6 have to be a neighbor to propose the sensible 7 thing. But once again, I do thank W.R. Grace for 8 choosing what was the better alternative. 9 I would like to add just a couple of 10 brief things to Mr. Bass' comments, if I might. 11 The first is the -- I would like to thank W.R. 12 Grace for extending the public comment period, and 13 I would also like to thank them massively for the 14 very good cookies. 15 (Laughter.) 16 MR. JOSEPHS: And I would like to urge 17 everybody here, who is going to ask a question, to 18 please submit it in writing, so that your question 19 is not somehow misinterpreted or misstated. 20 I would also like to ask W.R. Grace, 21 and this is something that I feel very, very 22 strongly about, and I don't want to say things that 23 are overtly negative, but I think someone has to 24 say something about the inappropriateness of having

53

1 public meetings like this so close to Christmas. I 2 understand that you have obligations that you have 3 to meet with respect to MCP, and we certainly 4 understand that, but I don't think that it's 5 appropriate and in the interests of this community 6 to have public meetings so close to holidays. 7 So I would just simply ask you to 8 consider that, and maybe the next time we meet that 9 that be taken more seriously into consideration, 10 because it has happened before. 11 And in addition to those comments, I 12 would like to say that I'm still unsatisfied with 13 W.R. Grace's characterization of the site history 14 to suggest that the asbestos, at the depths that 15 you find it and at the quantity that you find it 16 and in the state that you find, is the result of 17 either ACMs, or as a result of fugitive auto or 18 dust from the brake pads, just simply doesn't hold 19 water. If that held water, especially the brake 20 pad idea, then you would expect to see the same 21 sorts of contamination at Russell Field, which you 22 don't find, and we have examined Russell Field. 23 So one thing I would like to see W.R. 24 Grace do, and it probably isn't necessary from W.R.

54

1 Grace's point of view to get involved in this at 2 this point in MCP, but one thing I would love to 3 see is an explanation, or a more full explanation 4 or description of everything that W.R. Grace did, 5 in terms of its manufacturing process, because it's 6 still not there; there is no full discussion of the 7 battery separation operation and what that was. 8 Gasket materials, there is no explanation exactly 9 what that was and what that entailed; and it would 10 be nice in, given the -- the knowledge that W.R. 11 Grace has to have about its own manufacturing 12 processes, that the history be more complete, and 13 at least complete the extent that you can justify 14 your characterization of the soils. In other 15 words, there is nothing in the history that you 16 proposed thus far to -- to account for what you're 17 finding in the soils, and that's one of the things 18 that you're supposed to do. You're supposed to 19 provide a credible explanation of why the site is 20 in the condition that it's in with respect to the 21 history, for purposes of the RAO. It's a 22 requirement. You're supposed to do it. 23 That, I guess, would conclude my 24 comments; and once again, I would like to thank

55

1 W.R. Grace for holding this meeting. 2 MS. JEGHELIAN: Thank you, Joe. 3 Mike, do you want to come on up? 4 Do you want to use that microphone; is 5 that all right? 6 MR. NAKAGAWA: Hi. My name is Mike 7 Nakagawa. I'm with the Alewife Study Group, and 8 also a board member of Alewife Neighbors, 9 Incorporated, and I don't know if it was mentioned, 10 but their website has more information on 11 Alewife.org and AlewifeNeighbors.org, and some of 12 the documentation relative earlier to this site is 13 there and some background information, also. 14 What I have been asked to do is just we 15 have met with, as was mentioned, we have hired 16 technical and legal reviews for the close-out of 17 this process, and we felt it was an important time 18 to make sure that whatever was going to be done be 19 in writing, and whatever things we want to make 20 sure as neighbors that we will have them in place. 21 I was just going to quickly go through 22 the points that were made by the lawyer. We don't 23 have the information from the technical review yet, 24 because the documentation is pretty extensive for a

56

1 couple of weeks, and this is what I have been doing 2 for the past couple, so that will be available when 3 we get it. 4 There are some -- there are 10 points 5 that were made by the lawyer that he thought that 6 should be included or addressed at this point. In 7 terms of the Activity and Use Limitation, that is 8 what is being reviewed. The Activity and Use 9 Limitation is the document that will say what 10 exactly is required for the site, and so we need to 11 make sure that everyone will feel protected, 12 everything is in that document. 13 So one thing is that all the activities 14 and uses that are consistent with the document 15 should be conducted with the provisions on the 16 Section 3, the obligations and conditions section. 17 Right now, only certain activities are set 18 specifically to use the obligations are required to 19 follow the provisions and obligations and 20 conditions, but things like landscaping were not 21 specifically mentioned to fall under there, and 22 it's possible that landscaping uses could disturb 23 the soil. And it says it's to -- there needs to be 24 some concern there, but it doesn't say what, and so

57

1 we feel all the activities and uses identified in 2 the list should also reference the obligations and 3 conditions of such. 4 The obligations and conditions say 5 the -- in that section, the AUL is depending on a 6 protective cover, but the protective cover for most 7 of the site right now is vegetation, a grassy area, 8 and we feel there is a need to -- or the lawyer 9 feels that there is a need to inspect and maintain 10 the cover to keep -- to have monitoring. He 11 mentioned maybe monthly monitoring to ensure that 12 there is no breach in this protective cover, 13 because it's not a permanent cover, so you would 14 inspect it when there is a lot of contamination, 15 and they say, well, we're not going to remove it, 16 we're going to put a protective cover, it's usually 17 something that will not be broken. So there should 18 be some -- some way to monitor that to keep a log, 19 keep some signs, make sure that people know. Later 20 on maybe you're not going to remember that that's 21 what is on the site. You're walking through and 22 picking up some vegetation. 23 The third point was about the certified 24 industrial hygienist, or a similarly-trained

58

1 person, and I think you've addressed that. We 2 haven't seen the revised documents yet that say 3 that it's a Certified Industrial Hygienist, or a 4 similarly trained and experienced professional that 5 it will now be replaced by the Certified Hygienist 6 and an LSP, and we would like to see that in 7 writing. 8 Point four is the intrusive activities, 9 which are our main concern. Intrusive activities 10 are where there is a potential for dust generation, 11 because it digs into the contaminated layer. We 12 would like part of the -- we and the lawyers pose a 13 clear suggestion in saying that this should be 14 consistent with Cambridge's Asbestos Protection 15 Ordinance, and also that there should be some 16 restrictions that we shouldn't allow construction 17 to occur on a windy day, because just the chance of 18 breaching things, getting -- quickly getting out of 19 control with dust generation. 20 Five is notification. The neighbors 21 would like to be notified before activities are 22 occurring. This is a PIP site. PIP site is a part 23 of the Public Involvement Plan, and so in the 24 future, activities that particularly are changing

59

1 in the current usage should trigger informing the 2 neighbors and people of record right now so that we 3 have a chance to understand the potential risks 4 that are there. 5 Point six was documentation for 6 the sites from the May '98 soil sampling. These 7 are the initial -- after some sampling was done 8 from some of those hydrocarbons, there was some 9 additional sampling done where the first asbestos 10 was found, and there were 14 sites that were being 11 tested, and one of the key components was asbestos. 12 And the lawyer, in reviewing the documentation, 13 noted that those sites happened to be where the 14 highest concentrations on the site are, and then 15 when the full grid would -- across the site was 16 done, there weren't many very high levels of 17 asbestos found, but they seemed to know where to 18 sample that first time, and we were wondering 19 what -- how they knew where to find those high 20 hits. We would like to see some of that 21 documentation for the decision making. 22 Point seven was the three-inch 23 layering. Mr. Beck mentioned a six-inch layer. 24 The EPA came in and said there is no -- no imminent

60

1 health risk for the top layer of soil, which they 2 considered three inches, and three inches is not 3 very deep, if you can imagine, if you go below 4 three inches that you could hit contaminated soil. 5 And so the lawyer's recommendation was 6 to have some more protective layer to there. There 7 may be some issues, because it's a floodplain. I 8 am not sure, but he brought up the issue that three 9 inches was a rather shallow protective layer, at 10 least in areas where there might be contamination 11 near the surface, and since we don't really know. 12 The distribution of the asbestos is 13 kind of arbitrary. In some parts it's high; in 14 some parts it's deep; and it's not clustered in 15 particular areas. It's kind of spread out. So 16 it's kind of a confusing way to look at a site, and 17 the -- I think the decision by the LSP before had 18 been to just consider everything contaminated 19 potentially, so we don't run the risk of -- so we 20 don't have to do a lot of characterization when 21 we're not sure, just by the nature it looks like 22 everything could be, so let's play it safe. 23 Point eight was that generally when you 24 file an RAO with an AUL, just so that's the

61

1 close-out documentation, there would be site maps 2 that show the horizontal extent of the highest 3 contamination, the depths that the contaminants 4 are; and in particular, I mean not -- we're mostly 5 concerned with asbestos, because that showed the 6 highest health risks for cancer to the neighbors 7 and workers and project workers under construction 8 activities, but also some of the other contaminants 9 as they could be brought up. 10 Point nine was that the MCP requires a 11 conceptual site model, and Joe was talking about 12 that: Where -- where are the contaminants; where 13 did they come from; where are they going, if 14 anywhere, in migrating the site, diffusing; and 15 having supporting material for that model; and then 16 explain why any data that comes up is not 17 inconsistent with the model; and that the lawyer 18 felt that the data that we have come up says that 19 the site doesn't meet -- doesn't make sense that 20 it's just old building materials, because unless 21 the building materials were pulverized and then 22 spread and dug through the soil that you wouldn't 23 find any evidence of them, just to an extent in the 24 soil. That seems more consistent with something

62

1 else, and I'm not sure what. And that was his 2 point. 3 And without data supporting their 4 claim, this old building materials, because none 5 were found in this dust, or very minimal was; that 6 there is no data supplying that point, which is a 7 requirement of the whole state process. 8 And ten was, again, just more about 9 protective cover, and that's an important aspect of 10 this whole thing, how do we ensure that the 11 neighbors are protected. 12 I just wanted to read a couple of 13 things that came in this afternoon from Dr. 14 Christine Oliver, who is an MD, and she was 15 recently in the news, and the reason she couldn't 16 be here tonight was that she -- she's the one 17 involved in the Coakley Building, the courthouse, 18 downtown that is found to be heavily contaminated 19 with asbestos. She has also worked on the Big Dig. 20 And she was rather concerned about this site. She 21 was the one who really stressed the importance of a 22 Certified Industrial Hygienist, and not someone of 23 similar training, because of experiences that she 24 has had where improper calculations are done by a

63

1 not fully-trained person. But I'll skip that and 2 go to just a couple of points from hers. 3 The wet down and handling techniques, 4 which would minimize the potential for dust 5 generation and control measures discussed in 6 Section 3.3, in my opinion, the use of wet down 7 alone is insufficient. Other containment methods, 8 such as the use of impenetrable barriers would be 9 needed to assure that asbestos would not become 10 airborne and dispersed to areas beyond this site. 11 If that is included in the handling techniques 12 mentioned, it should be more explicitly stated. 13 And to my knowledge, there are no 14 applicable limits for odors in Section 3.3, and 15 which applicable limits for asbestos would be used. 16 And the concern is with asbestos, which I'll just 17 read one paragraph here. 18 Asbestos is a known carcinogen. At 19 lower levels of exposure, the greatest risk with 20 regard to the development of asbestos-related 21 disease is for malignant mesothelioma. The 22 development of this almost universally -- that was 23 a misprint -- tumor, I think it's -- it's mainly 24 attributable to asbestos only -- I think that's

64

1 what she meant -- has been reported in association 2 with household, neighborhood and bystander 3 exposures. Its latency is long. 4 Asbestos-exposed children are at 5 greatest risk for the development of malignant 6 mesothelioma for several reasons. They are more 7 likely to live out the 30 to 40 year latency of 8 malignant mesothelioma. The cellular growth and 9 metabolic rates are more rapid rendering their DNA 10 more vulnerable. Their respiratory rate is higher 11 than that of adults, and they are shorter and 12 closer to the ground, and less likely to breathe in 13 more contaminated dust. 14 And that is my primary concern, too, is 15 the construction. Russell Field is right along the 16 border. If the dust gets airborne and moves 17 across, we don't know how much contamination there 18 is in any particular segment of dust, so we will 19 have some maybe heavily contaminated, and it all 20 looks the same. 21 So any dust generation could be 22 contamination that will stay in the fields where 23 our children from all over the city play; and so 24 that is a particular concern, because it's a cancer

65

1 risk, and when asbestos lodges in the lungs, it 2 stays there. The body can't get rid of it. So 3 those are the points that I was told to make. 4 The other thing to be concerned about 5 is the whole RAO was set up saying that there is no 6 current risk, but there is a theoretical risk from 7 development. But just, I think we need to address 8 potential development more fully, because 17 acres 9 of propelled plans to a T station in Cambridge 10 doesn't sound to me like just a theoretical 11 development. 12 So I -- I think that we need some 13 minimum standards in place, rather than saying we 14 will come up with them later. We can make 15 allowances to change them in the future, but saying 16 that we will come up with a plan in the future, 17 because there is no -- no plan development now is, 18 I think, not entirely in what people really believe 19 in. So I will leave it. 20 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Thanks, Mike. 21 Thanks very much. 22 You know, what I would like to do is if 23 you don't mind having like a two-minute stretch 24 break, and I would like to consult with Ronnie,

66

1 Mike, Joe and Bill Beck, and just see how we want 2 to proceed, if we want to have -- if it makes sense 3 for Bill and Melissa at Haley & Aldrich to respond 4 to some of this, or for us to open up and take some 5 more questions. 6 Can we just take that -- so could you 7 just take a five minute stretch break. 8 And Mike and Joe and Ronnie, could you 9 just come on up here for a minute. 10 (There was a short break taken.) 11 MS. JEGHELIAN: All right. We're going 12 to -- okay. Please come on back in. We're going 13 to get going again. Okay. Please everybody have a 14 seat so we can keep going. 15 We have State Representative Alice 16 Wolf. Could you stand. She has just arrived. She 17 just wants you to know she's here. Thank you for 18 attending. 19 We're going to now just have an open 20 question and answer period for all of you, who have 21 been so patient to offer your questions and 22 comments; and -- and then we also, as we said, if 23 we can't get to all of you, we are going to ask you 24 to please write out your questions on those index

67

1 cards and submit them at the end of the evening. 2 I'm going to ask if you could, because 3 we are transcribing, and it seems to help people to 4 have people be speaking into mics tonight. If you 5 don't mind coming up to the microphone, and if you 6 can't or don't want to, I can share my mic with 7 you. I will be happy to do that. So whatever 8 works for all of you. 9 Okay. So why don't we open it up for 10 questions and answers, and there is a woman here. 11 Bev. 12 Please, again, state your name and 13 where you live, please, or affiliation. 14 BEVERLY KOGUT: Hello. My name is 15 Beverly Kogut, and I live on Notre Dame Avenue. 16 I'm one of the neighbors here. 17 And I have a question that I understand 18 from listening in this evening that the Alewife 19 group, the community -- the neighborhood group, has 20 been very important in making sure that some of the 21 activities on the site are done safely, and I 22 wonder if the AUL requires and mandates that that 23 community input from the Alewife group continue? 24 MR. BECK: It is not in the AUL, and it

68

1 does not specify that. The -- what is usually 2 specified in an AUL are land restrictions and 3 land-use restrictions that apply to a site, as 4 opposed to meetings or public involvement, at 5 least, and I'm not -- I'm not familiar with any 6 such requirements being placed in any AULs. I 7 don't know, Jack, do you... 8 Mostly, it has to do with land use 9 things. I mean, W.R. Grace is committed to meet 10 and to participate in the future with the neighbors. 11 BEVERLY KOGUT: If I may, is it 12 some -- can we have that -- is it possible to have 13 that in the deed that they are required to have the 14 community input on the site activities? 15 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. So the question 16 was is it possible to have in the deed the 17 community input on the AUL, have that right in the 18 AUL; is that what you're asking? 19 BEVERLY KOGUT: Yes. 20 MR. BECK: I'll look into it. I'll be 21 happy to do that. 22 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. There is a 23 question here. 24 JUDY BREWER: Can I borrow your

69

1 microphone? 2 MS. JEGHELIAN: Yes. 3 JUDY BREWER: Thank you. My name is 4 Judy Brewer. I live on Harvey Street as part of 5 the Cornerstone Co-housing, and I was curious about 6 the management and monitoring plans. 7 You, Mr. Beck, you made a statement 8 that experience indicates these protections work 9 after listing a series of potential soil management 10 and dust control techniques. So, you know, we're 11 all human, including construction workers and 12 people supervising that and so forth. I was 13 curious if there is any statistics on the typical 14 compliance for such management controls in a 15 construction situation? 16 You know, we all read about the Big 17 Dig, and there is plenty of safety and quality 18 control procedures there, and obviously a 19 percentage of them typically are not followed. So 20 that is the first part of the question. 21 The second is what is the frequency of 22 the monitoring that's being proposed here, if there 23 were construction? Would it be monthly, weekly, 24 daily?

70

1 It's probably costly. I am assuming it 2 wouldn't be continually. 3 Would it be on calm days, windy days 4 and so forth; and what is the timing on the results 5 of those tests when they are available compared to 6 contamination? Again, to relate to a typical 7 situation we see, that we often see notices of last 8 week the water was slightly contaminated, and if 9 you have a compromised immune system, you shouldn't 10 have been drinking it. I never know quite what to 11 do in that situation. 12 MR. BECK: Good questions. Let me see 13 if I can -- 14 MS. JEGHELIAN: Let's just clarify. 15 There are two pieces to that. The first one is 16 data on compliance of safety and protection, and 17 then under these management monitoring plans; and 18 the other is the frequency of the monitoring. 19 Go ahead. 20 MR. BECK: Okay. Let me hit our 21 frequency of the monitoring first. 22 MS. JEGHELIAN: Yeah. I don't think 23 people can -- can you hear? 24 MR. BECK: Can you hear me from there?

71

1 All right. There. Maybe a little 2 closer. The frequency of monitoring question, you 3 do continuous monitoring for a site such as this, 4 and you monitor dust into real-time monitoring. 5 You report those results out on a continuing basis. 6 I have done this for the past four 7 years on another site, and there were monitors set 8 up around the work activity, at the perimeters, and 9 there were action levels set, threshold values set, 10 and never once during four years of operation at 11 this site, which was contaminated with both 12 asbestos and lead, did -- was there any excursions. 13 It was all handled by wetting, and we found wetting 14 to be extremely useful. It limited -- it limited 15 dust. 16 Now, on windy days, we didn't work. We 17 did walk around in boots. We were in mud working 18 most of the time, because of the amount of water 19 that is present on the site, but we used wetting 20 techniques. We moved hundreds of thousands of 21 yards of dirt, which had contamination. We were in 22 a neighborhood across the street from a soccer 23 field. As a matter of fact, the soccer field was 24 constructed just before our construction project

72

1 started with no controls at all. So it can be 2 done. 3 And statistics, I'm not aware of any. 4 They may be out there. 5 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. That was on the 6 compliance. 7 Mr. Schnapp, did you want to come up to 8 the microphone? 9 STEVE SCHNAPP: Yeah, if I can stand 10 here. If you don't mind, I can speak loudly 11 without a mic. 12 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. 13 STEVE SCHNAPP: So people will be able 14 to hear me. 15 My name is Steve Schnapp. I live on 16 Clay Street. I have two comments actually to make. 17 Not to Grace, but to you. 18 I moved to North Cambridge with my 19 family in 1977, and shortly thereafter got involved 20 with neighborhood efforts concerned about the 21 contamination that was revealed in this area as the 22 Red Line was being extended from Harvard Square to 23 Alewife, and there was all that construction, and 24 people began smelling stuff in the air and seeing

73

1 stuff and got very concerned about that and started 2 to organize. And I remember going to meetings like 3 this and listening to a neighborhood resident, who 4 said they had lived in the neighborhood for 27 5 years, and I guess now I'm one of those people who 6 have lived here that long, and now coming to 7 another effort like this. 8 The first point is that the folks in 9 the Alewife study groups and other concerned 10 residents like yourself are concerned, not only 11 because of the president -- presence of 12 contamination in the soil, but also -- also because 13 we're not completely trusting of what we hear from 14 Grace Chemical and -- and others, and that's 15 because we read the newspapers, and we have 16 experienced a lot of statements, a lot of studies; 17 and frankly, Grace does not have the best track 18 record when it comes to caring about health and 19 safety issues in the communities they are in. Not 20 in this one, not in other areas of Massachusetts, 21 not in other areas of the country. That's one of 22 the reasons we -- we are so persistent in pushing 23 for assurances that we will be safe, and we will be 24 healthy.

74

1 The other point I want to make is that 2 some of the concessions that you have heard 3 tonight, or additions, let me put it that way, to 4 the plan that was offered tonight are the direct 5 result of the efforts of concerned neighbors like 6 yourself; and, in fact, many of the things that we 7 hear tonight, even the presence of asbestos, the 8 fact that we now know there is asbestos in the soil 9 was not a result of Grace Chemical's figuring out 10 that they needed to test for that. It was a result 11 of residents like us, not experts or professionals, 12 but sometimes using their help, doing the research, 13 and saying there is more in the ground than what 14 we're hearing about. And they discovered that and 15 practically forced Grace and others to do the kind 16 of testing that resulted in what you're hearing 17 tonight. 18 So to wrap up, I want to say thank you 19 to the folks, who have been most active in this; 20 thank you to the folks, who have come out tonight, 21 and to say that by your continued efforts, by our 22 continued efforts, to monitor, to press, to push, 23 to involve ourselves in participatory democracy, 24 which is what this is, we can have the best

75

1 assurance for our own health and the health and 2 safety of our families. 3 So thank you very much. 4 MS. JEGHELIAN: Thank you, Steve. 5 This gentleman here. Is it Ralph? 6 RALPH YODER: Yeah. 7 MS. JEGHELIAN: Do you want to come up 8 to the mic? 9 RALPH YODER: Sure. 10 MS. JEGHELIAN: Thanks. 11 RALPH YODER: Ralph Yoder. I live on 12 Rindge Avenue. 13 I want to just deal with this a little 14 bit of a side issue that is still pertinent. 15 In regard to Ronnie Millar's suggestion 16 that we want to work with W.R. Grace on any future 17 construction, I would like to politely state that 18 it provides that -- the Grace site provides diverse 19 habitat for wildlife, even -- even with contamination 20 below grade, it is still remarkable grassland and 21 scrub habitat. Peregrine Falcons, which are 22 federally endangered, have been seen in most recent 23 winters in the area on that side of the road. Many 24 other raptors, including eagles, hawks, nulls, and

76

1 their prey have been here as well, and Alewife is a 2 major hawk site. I have personally noted American 3 Woodcocks, identified prominently by their calls, 4 in the W.R. Grace meadows. And state listed 5 protected grassland species have also been 6 identified, such as grasshopper and Vesper 7 Sparrows. Most notably those two. 8 The grasslands in Alewife is the most 9 endangered habitat, and many of us see the 10 viability of retaining this site not for -- not 11 for construction, but for wildlife. 12 Thank you. 13 MS. JEGHELIAN: Thank you, Ralph. 14 There is -- I would like to get over to 15 this side of the room now for a few minutes. 16 This woman right here. Would you like 17 to speak? 18 TRACY WALTON: Sure. I am Tracy 19 Walton, and I live on Sargent Street, and -- I'm 20 sorry -- I'm shivering. It's cold back -- back 21 there. 22 I am curious, especially with the 23 reference to wildlife. I don't know much about 24 asbestos and wonder how much it's tracked by

77

1 animals and birds and people to the surrounding 2 environment over time, or not concentrated in the 3 food chain, but disseminated that way. 4 MS. JEGHELIAN: Bill or Melissa, would 5 you like to respond to that? 6 MS. McEWEN: I think we are probably 7 both going to admit that we actually don't know a 8 lot about that. 9 MS. JEGHELIAN: Wait a minute. 10 MS. McEWEN: Sorry. I think both of us 11 don't know a lot about that particular subject. We 12 would certainly ask whether Jack or Edmund or Rich 13 had any more knowledge than we did; and if not, 14 we'll certainly look into that and find out the 15 answer. 16 MS. JEGHELIAN: Does anyone else want 17 to comment? 18 No, okay. We'll look -- they will look 19 into it, and put some more information in their 20 response. 21 TRACY WALTON: Just a quick follow-up. 22 MS. JEGHELIAN: Sure. 23 TRACY WALTON: It has implications for 24 a site that is certainly larger than what's on the

78

1 map. 2 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. So the 3 implicate -- we want to understand the implications 4 for exposure beyond the Grace site? 5 Okay. 6 There was another woman here. Do you 7 still have a question? 8 HANNAH GOODWIN: Me? 9 MS. JEGHELIAN: Yes. 10 HANNAH GOODWIN: Yes. 11 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Come on up. And 12 then we will come back to this side of the room. 13 We'll try to go back and forth. 14 HANNAH GOODWIN: Hi. Hannah Goodwin, 15 Clifton Street, Russell Field, about a baseball's 16 throw away from this site. I'm a member, board 17 member, of ANI, and also a member of Alewife Study 18 Group, and I have been involved with this for about 19 10 years, starting with a meeting in my living room 20 with David Vickery of Spaulding & Sly and a handful 21 of neighbors in which David tried to convince us 22 that development was inevitable, and that we should 23 all go along with this plan that they had for the 24 site, and that the neighborhood backed it. And

79

1 from that time to this time, I've been in multiple 2 meetings, including meetings that included members 3 of the city, members from the neighborhood, 4 mediation teams and representatives from W.R. 5 Grace, and I'm thrilled that W.R. Grace has the 6 idea of meeting with the neighbors and continuing, 7 or to include that in their process. 8 My question is what -- what is there 9 that says that you won't just meet with us, but 10 that there will be some assurance that the 11 neighbors actually have input; that we're actually 12 listened to; that something goes forward where 13 there is a working relationship, because all of my 14 experience says -- I can't tell you how many times 15 I have been told by someone that development on 16 this site is inevitable, and that basically we 17 should get over it and, you know, kind of go with 18 what's going to happen or the best case scenario. 19 And so I want to believe that things 20 will be moved forward very, very much, but I do 21 feel like we need some assurances there, and the 22 idea to me to second what I believe Mike said, that 23 there is -- that there is no building -- there is 24 no development plan, I find very, very hard to

80

1 swallow, having had so many people over the years 2 tell me that, in fact, it was inevitable, because 3 the site is too precious to give up. 4 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Thank you. 5 What I -- I would like to just address 6 that briefly. We're going to put as an action item 7 the development of this plan for Grace and the 8 neighborhood to continue to have communication, and 9 it's something that we can address when we do 10 follow up in the debriefing meetings, follow up 11 with this meeting and figure out how that could 12 happen, so we can explore the best way, and that 13 will give everybody time to think about what you're 14 looking for. So I would like to just suggest that 15 as something we put as an action item and follow up 16 with after the meeting. 17 Bob, did you want to say something? 18 MR. JENKINS: Yeah, just a brief 19 comment. 20 One, as a representative of Grace, I 21 can tell you today there are no current plans to 22 develop this site. I wasn't here when David 23 Vickery met with some of the neighbors and so 24 forth. There is no longer an active relationship

81

1 with the Spaulding & Sly Company to pursue now, but 2 there are, I can tell you today, there are no plans 3 at this point in time to develop this site. That's 4 why, as I think you saw, as Bill talked about, the 5 condition of no significant risk should that 6 condition exist. 7 Second, I think, as you heard in our 8 opening slides, we are committed to establishing an 9 ongoing and regular dialogue. If there is any 10 mistake I think we've made in the past, it's 11 waiting for an action, like this program, to 12 sit down and have a dialogue. 13 I think the best way to do this, we do 14 this on a regular basis. You folks will have very 15 good visibility to what's coming. I think you saw 16 on the slides, as we said before, we approach any 17 town officials with plans, buildings. We said, 18 we're going to commit to sit down and talk and 19 share this with the neighborhood. 20 I think it's a mistake we made in the 21 past. We are here to converse. 22 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Thanks, Bob. 23 Denise. Here. I can give you my mic. 24 DENISE GUERIN: I can stand here.

82

1 My name is Denise Guerin -- is it off? 2 AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: You have to put 3 it closer. 4 DENISE GUERIN: -- Guerin -- can you 5 hear me? 6 Okay. Denise Guerin of Montgomery 7 Street. 8 MS. JEGHELIAN: Do you know if -- 9 DENISE GUERIN: I think -- I think the 10 best way that you can -- 11 MS. JEGHELIAN: Can you hold the mic 12 separate. 13 DENISE GUERIN: All right. If we're 14 really hearing that there are no current plans to 15 develop the site, and another thing that I'm 16 hearing all the time here is that there is a 17 serious lack of trust on the part of the neighbors. 18 They have a hard time believing what W.R. Grace has 19 said in the past doesn't always happen, and now 20 here is what I think is a golden opportunity. 21 If there are no current plans to 22 develop the site, really and truly, then my 23 question is why is W.R. Grace holding onto the 24 site?

83

1 As a matter of fact, I have got a 2 proposal for you right here and now that sounds to 3 me like a win-win. I'm the president of Alewife 4 Neighbors, Inc., which is 501(c)(3) organization 5 here in the neighborhood, and it seems to me that 6 if W.R. Grace has no plans to develop the site then 7 here is a win-win proposal. 8 You can just deed the site to ANI, and 9 you can relieve yourself of the tax -- oh, wait a 10 minute now. There is a problem there with the tax 11 burden, I know, but anyway, you can relieve 12 yourself of the tax liability, and you could do a 13 long -- you could go a long, long way toward 14 remedying a lack of trust between Grace 15 neighbors -- the Grace and the neighbors, because 16 then we would know for sure that the site would 17 never be developed. 18 Just think about it. Okay. And I'm 19 open to discussion of this particular issue 20 whenever W.R. Grace wants to deal with ANI about 21 it. Okay. 22 Thank you. 23 (Applause.) 24 MS. JEGHELIAN: Please state your name

84

1 before you ask your question, please. 2 DAVID LEVITT: David Levitt. I live on 3 Notre Dame Avenue. 4 I think that the purpose of the meeting 5 is a request by Grace to get out from under 6 government regulation and to institute a practice 7 based on monitoring by an LSP; is that correct, 8 essentially? 9 MR. JENKINS: Well, Grace is requesting 10 a change in the -- in the overall supervision of 11 the site in future development. 12 MR. BECK: The supervision of the site 13 has been under my direction all along, and it 14 will -- I'm sorry. 15 The supervision of the site has been 16 under my direction all along and would continue. 17 DAVID LEVITT: Yeah, but there has been 18 monitoring by other parties like DEP? 19 MR. BECK: We submit information to 20 DEP. We're required to by law. And DEP does 21 comment from time to time on the information that 22 we prepare. 23 DAVID LEVITT: So what is Grace 24 requesting specifically now, because the

85

1 description of the purpose of the meeting just 2 described presenting and discussing, but no 3 specific proposal by Grace. 4 Did I miss something? 5 Why are we here? 6 What is Grace proposing? 7 MR. BECK: Grace is -- 8 DAVID LEVITT: What do you want us 9 to -- to support you on? 10 MR. BECK: Grace is proposing to close 11 the site out under the MCP. 12 DAVID LEVITT: What does that mean? 13 MR. BECK: That means that at this 14 point, because it has achieved a condition of no 15 significant risk on the site, we're in a position 16 to put what's called a Response Action Outcome 17 Statement in, which for the time being puts the 18 site into compliance with the set of regulations 19 called the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, okay. 20 If -- and there it will sit. If there is any 21 intrusive activities proposed for the site, any 22 changes in the conditions of use to the site, the 23 site comes back into the regulatory program, and it 24 would have direct supervision of an LSP.

86

1 There would be plans that would be 2 prepared. There would be public involvement and 3 the DEP. State and local and federal officials 4 would also be involved in review of anything that 5 is done on the property. 6 DAVID LEVITT: So what is Grace -- what -- 7 I assume that there is a change in conditions that 8 Grace is requesting; otherwise, we wouldn't be 9 here. 10 What is the change that's being 11 requested? 12 MR. BECK: We are completing the 13 process. We're in the process of -- we're making a 14 representation that we have characterized the site; 15 that we have conducted a risk characterization; and 16 that we are required by law under the MCP to 17 present those results to you tonight. 18 You have the ability to comment on 19 those and to provide input to that document, and 20 we're responsible for responding to those -- to 21 those comments. So we're here to provide an 22 overview to you and ask for your input. 23 DAVID LEVITT: So there is no request 24 for a change in --

87

1 MR. BECK: We're not changing the 2 property use. It will be like this for the 3 foreseeable future. 4 DAVID LEVITT: You're just presenting a 5 progress report, and there is no -- there will be 6 no changes in governmental participation in future 7 development of the site? 8 MS. JEGHELIAN: I think we should have 9 Jack speak to that. 10 DAVID LEVITT: Is that what you're 11 requesting? 12 MS. JEGHELIAN: Jack, could you just 13 say something about the governmental oversight, 14 because I think that may be what people are wanting 15 to know. 16 JACK MIANO: Hello. My name is Jack 17 Miano. I am with the Department of Environmental 18 Protection. 19 Let me see. I just maybe reiterate a 20 couple of things that Bill said. For each -- for 21 each place where there is a site like this where 22 there has been a released oil or hazardous 23 materials, there is a time frame associated with 24 evaluating the contamination, seeing if it needs to

88

1 be cleaned up; if it does, implementing some kind 2 of clean-up, and achieving a condition of no 3 significant risk. All of that is required by the 4 regulations, and there are time frames associated 5 with that. 6 Typically, we like to see that closure 7 happen in five years. Sometimes that happens, but 8 many times it does not. For sites like this, 9 complicated sites like this with -- with long 10 manufacturing histories, it practically never 11 happens. And in this time frame that you have here 12 stretching out five, 10, 15, 20 years, in the state 13 environmental program this is typical for a site 14 like this. 15 So now they're getting to the point 16 where they have finished the assessment. They have 17 completed the remediation, which in this case was 18 the -- was the bioremediation of the area where the 19 petroleum contamination was, and they are doing 20 what is required by law in that they're submitting 21 a closure report to the state. 22 There has been a change in the 23 regulations recently that is going to benefit you 24 folks in regard to this site, and that is

89

1 before -- before this year, before this current 2 time, once a site achieved closure, there would be 3 no additional state input after that regarding 4 environmental issues associated with -- with 5 conditions at that site; but since 1993, when the 6 use of the activity use limitation, the deed 7 notice, was instituted, the Department of 8 Environmental Protection has become kind of 9 concerned about sites that have AULs, because we 10 are not -- we are not really in a position to 11 keep -- keep tabs on those folks. The properties 12 are changing hands, and they are changing uses all 13 the time, and there was no requirement for us to 14 get any kind of information about that. 15 So right now, there is a proposed 16 addition and amendment to the regulations, and that 17 amendment was going to require that after a site 18 achieves closure with an AUL like this one, any 19 time that they go to do some kind of intrusive 20 activity, construction activity, for instance, they 21 will be required to put together a report and 22 submit that report to us before they begin that 23 activity. 24 And I think that speaks to your

90

1 question, as to whether there will be continued 2 government involvement after this closure report is 3 received by the Department. 4 FEMALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: What 5 happens if they declare bankruptcy or merge with 6 another company; is that the same result? 7 JACK MIANO: Well, the interesting 8 thing about the AUL is, and Bill mentioned this, 9 there's a couple of different ways to say it. The 10 AUL runs with the deed, and it runs with two 11 successors. So most of the time, when we get a 12 Response Action Outcome, it's because somebody 13 wants to do something with the property. They want 14 to -- they want to move a property. In order to 15 move a property, they need to go to a bank and get 16 some kind of financing, or one of the parties needs 17 to do that. And so what we typically see is a 18 Response Action Outcome comes in. Shortly 19 thereafter, the property is transferred to somebody 20 else, and now it's not that original party that is 21 complying with the requirements of that activity 22 and use limitation, that -- that deed restriction. 23 So my expectation when I first saw this 24 Response Action Outcome, and even we've had

91

1 discussions with the Department, well, what do you 2 think is going to happen in the future? It's 3 probably not going to be Grace that we're dealing 4 with. So likely they won't hold the property 5 forever. 6 And this is the first time that I've 7 really heard stated that there are no future 8 foreseeable plans, no plans right now to develop 9 the property, sell the property or develop the 10 property. That's good for you folks, too, 11 because -- because if Grace is willing to -- 12 MALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Who said 13 there are no plans to develop? 14 MALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: No plans to 15 develop. 16 JACK MIANO: Right. What I'm saying is 17 what you typically see is when we get an RAO, there 18 are plans to do two things: Sell it, and the new 19 guy is going to develop it. That is typically why 20 we see the RAO is for larger industrial-type 21 properties. 22 So this is a different situation you 23 folks are in, and that is going to benefit you at 24 least for some time.

92

1 KATHERINE TRIANTAFILLOU: So a 2 successor company will be -- will have to comply 3 with what you're saying right now? They cannot 4 interfere with the soil, unless they file an 5 additional report; is that what you're saying? 6 JACK MIANO: Yes, because that is going 7 to be a deed notice and will become a requirement 8 for any new property owners. 9 KATHERINE TRIANTAFILLOU: And if they 10 file for bankruptcy, as they have done all across 11 the country to evade responsibility for asbestos 12 contamination, what will happen? 13 MALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Good 14 question. 15 JACK MIANO: Well, the -- 16 DAVID LEVITT: They still have a 17 responsibility as a landowner. 18 JACK MIANO: The -- the responsibility 19 to comply with whatever is required by the AUL 20 still exists. If somebody doesn't have any money, 21 because they are bankrupt, and because of that they 22 can't do the development project, it's the 23 development project really that's going to -- that 24 is going to cost in complying with the AUL.

93

1 KATHERINE TRIANTAFILLOU: Everything 2 that we want in there has to be in the deed in 3 order to make sure that it continues on in 4 perpetuity. This property has to be permanently 5 burdened with the responsibility to the community. 6 That is what we're asking for -- and I am sorry for 7 not identifying myself. I'm Katherine Triantafillou. 8 MS. JEGHELIAN: Katherine Triantafillou. 9 KATHERINE TRIANTAFILLOU: I reside at 10 90 Reed Street, and I'm a former City Councillor, 11 who authored these Asbestos Protection Act with 12 these neighbors. 13 (Applause.) 14 KATHERINE TRIANTAFILLOU: There has got 15 to be permanent protection in all of these words in 16 all of these reports. It has got to go with the 17 land forever. No matter who is involved with the 18 land, whether it's W.R. Grace, or any other 19 company, or in the Bankruptcy Court, or anything 20 else, and that is what you have got to say, and you 21 have got to put it in writing so we understand 22 that. 23 JACK MIANO: I believe -- right, I 24 believe --

94

1 KATHERINE TRIANTAFILLOU: You may sign 2 off on it. Because we know you, and we've worked 3 with you for years, but there will be some other 4 environmental protection given the administration. 5 There will be several. Maybe there won't even be 6 an environmental protection. 7 (Laughter.) 8 JACK MIANO: The way things are going, 9 that's right. 10 (Laughter.) 11 KATHERINE TRIANTAFILLOU: In the deed, 12 whatever happens here, we want it in the deed, so 13 it stays with the property. 14 JACK MIANO: Right. All of those 15 things that you suggested are true. Those things 16 do occur. It's -- the AUL is not completed through 17 the Department of Environmental Protection. It's 18 merely submitted to us. It's all done through the 19 Registry of Deeds, and it will run with the land 20 and with future property owners. 21 They are asking me to mention the audit 22 review. There is one more step in this, as far as 23 DEP's involvement. All of the Response Action 24 Outcome submittals that we get at the Department

95

1 are audited by the Department. So everyone gets a 2 preliminary review, and this one will get a 3 preliminary review and then a more -- and I will do 4 a more comprehensive review. 5 So we're still going to have one 6 more -- one more round of oversight with this 7 project before we're done, and I'm taking all of 8 these comments into consideration, and I'll get 9 copies of all the comments, and I will be looking 10 at them while I do my review also. 11 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. David, I think 12 you had one more question. 13 DAVID LEVITT: Yeah, I just want to cap 14 this. 15 As I understand it, this is a proposal 16 to request closure for this particular phase of 17 the -- the site review, but if construction is 18 contemplated in the future, then you -- Grace will 19 then go back to DEP and get the same -- enjoy the 20 same sort of audit review that it has at present, 21 if the regs pass? 22 JACK MIANO: The regulations -- the 23 additions and amendments to regulations are 24 expected to take place in the springtime; and then

96

1 yes, they will have to put together a report, 2 submit that to us, and then we audit -- we audit 3 all of those reports as we receive them. 4 If we see anything in there that 5 doesn't seem like it is in compliance with the 6 regs, then we get involved. 7 DAVID LEVITT: So there will be no 8 removal of independent DEP oversight of Grace 9 construction projects? 10 JACK MIANO: All construction -- 11 DAVID LEVITT: So then can we request 12 that if the regs do not pass that Grace agree to 13 follow the proposed regs anyway and submit a report 14 to DEP, which DEP would agree to review? 15 JACK MIANO: You can suggest that. 16 (Laughter.) 17 DAVID LEVITT: Thank you. 18 MS. JEGHELIAN: Just a minute. These 19 two gentlemen here have had their hands up, so why 20 don't we take you first and then you. 21 DANIEL KAMMAN: My name is Daniel 22 Kamman, spelled K-A-M-M-A-N, 69 Harvey Street. 23 I have a clarification question on the 24 PowerPoint slide at the bottom of page 7, the ALU

97

1 requirements that will make the health and safety 2 plan. 3 I would like an explanation of the word 4 "sensitive" in sensitive human populations. 5 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Bill. 6 MR. BECK: Anyone on or around the 7 site, children and adults. 8 DANIEL KAMMAN: What does the word 9 "sensitive" mean in there? 10 I'm not trying to be dense, but it 11 seems to me you said the human population. 12 Does "sensitive" mean within a certain 13 area or distance? 14 MR. BECK: Edmund Crouch, our Risk 15 Assessor. 16 EDMUND CROUCH: Usually it means any 17 particularly sensitive receptor. If for some 18 reason any particular type of person, any 19 population that could be distinguished from any 20 other is more sensitive than others, they have got 21 to be protected. They have got to be protected. 22 So everybody basically. 23 DANIEL KAMMAN: Okay. Thank you. 24 EDMUND CROUCH: Just in case.

98

1 MALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: The ones 2 who breathe air. 3 EDMUND CROUCH: Yeah. Okay. That's 4 clear. Thank you. 5 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Thank you. 6 MR. BECK: Thank you, Edmund. 7 MS. JEGHELIAN: This gentleman. 8 We'll get back to this side of the room 9 again. 10 ARAM HOLLMAN: My mime is Aram Hollman. 11 I'm a former Clifton Street, North Cambridge 12 resident. I currently live in Arlington. I got 13 involved with this in 1995 when Grace was planning 14 to develop the site here, and I smelled an absoline 15 (phonetic spelling) wind blowing. 16 I was also involved in the facilitated 17 meetings that Grace held with some of the 18 neighbors; and in answer to an Hannah's question 19 about is this inevitable, nothing is inevitable. 20 The Grace site was downzoned so that 21 the maximum allowable building is less. The 22 Alewife Study Group did that. Other neighbors 23 downzoned the nearby Bullfinch site so that 24 significantly less development will go there.

99

1 You can do a lot. Nothing is inevitable. 2 I have got your sheet in front of me 3 here, and I'm reading from it "Grace also wants to 4 work with the neighborhood." I want to take you up 5 on that and see if word translates to deed. 6 So I will make two requests: One, will 7 Grace commit to complying with Cambridge's Asbestos 8 Protection Ordinance? 9 ROBERT JENKINS: I think it's -- I 10 think we made the statement that Grace will comply 11 with all applicable city, state and local 12 ordinances. 13 ARAM HOLLMAN: Okay. Another one. I 14 think if we're going to work together then I think 15 that it's important that we agree on what the facts 16 are. 17 One of the disputed facts is just how 18 much asbestos is in the ground and where it came 19 from. I would like to hear from Grace, something 20 that I have yet to hear from, even though I have 21 been involved in this since 1995. The assertion 22 that has been made by David Bass and other people 23 that there are, quote, hundreds of thousands of 24 pounds of asbestos. Alewife Study Group estimates

100

1 are between 600,000 and 1.2 million pounds on the 2 site. 3 Do you agree with that or not? I would 4 really like to know. 5 MS. JEGHELIAN: Melissa or Bill, can 6 you respond to that? 7 MR. BECK: The quantity of asbestos 8 that's present in the soil is problematic. It is 9 present. There is no doubt in my mind that there 10 is asbestos present in the soil. 11 It is extremely difficult, and I'll be 12 happy to sit down with your experts to calculate 13 that volume; however, the risk characterization 14 that has been conducted on the property assumes and 15 presents a conclusion of risk if those subsurface 16 soils are disturbed. 17 So it doesn't matter whether there is 18 more or whether there is less asbestos present in 19 the subsurface soils. It's like a switch, you 20 either have it or you don't. We're concluding that 21 there is risk. 22 And I will be happy to sit down with 23 any of you and your experts and discuss how one 24 might calculate the volume of asbestos.

101

1 ARAM HOLLMAN: The second part was 2 where it came from. 3 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Somebody had 4 asked, if you'd like to -- 5 MR. BECK: Well, I will clarify. 6 MS. JEGHELIAN: -- have a clarification 7 on where it came from as well. 8 MR. BECK: Yes. 9 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. 10 ARAM HOLLMAN: I guess -- I guess I put 11 in my question in request, not in the context of 12 the risk assessment, but in the context of Grace's 13 statement, Grace also wants to work with the 14 neighborhood. What I'm looking for is consensus or 15 agreement on what the facts are. If we do not have 16 agreement on what the facts are, it's going to be 17 very difficult to proceed, to work together, if 18 we're -- if the basis of what we consider facts are 19 different. 20 MR. BECK: Right. 21 ARAM HOLLMAN: I'm wondering if there 22 is some way that you can do that, and I hope that 23 will happen. 24 Thank you.

102

1 MR. BECK: We have to work together. 2 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Thank you very 3 much. 4 Okay. I think I said we would go over 5 to this side of the room. This gentleman in back 6 here. You, yes. 7 JUNJI MOROKUMA: Me? 8 MS. JEGHELIAN: Yes. 9 JUNJI MOROKUMA: Hi, Alewife. 10 MS. JEGHELIAN: Do you mind if you use 11 my microphone? 12 JUNJI MOROKUMA: Oh, I'm sorry. Hello. 13 I just moved into Alewife area about a month ago. 14 My name is Junji Morokuma. I'm -- actually, I was 15 born in Boston, but was -- actually grew up in 16 Japan. I just came here a month ago to work. 17 I choose my place, because my place is 18 at 218 Harvey Street. Maybe lots of people who go 19 to the Alewife Station notice that it's the last 20 one at the Harvey Street, right next to the site, 21 and the view is very good. That's why I choosed 22 it. It was like excellent. But I kind of stumbled 23 onto this asbestos issue. Just a few days ago, 24 this flyer was in my mailbox, and I was kind of

103

1 like horrified, terrified, in a very big shock. 2 Some people might say it was a bit of a panic. 3 My wife is still in Japan, and I 4 haven't told her about this issue yet -- 5 (Laughter.) 6 JUNJI MOROKUMA: -- until I know what 7 exactly is going on. So that's why I come -- I 8 came to hear what's happening. 9 And lots of issues have been cleared, 10 which actually made my thoughts move on to extra 11 questions that haven't been -- seemed to be 12 answered. So I just want to ask -- well actually, 13 I don't know who to ask. There is so many 14 questions, but I just write it down. 15 There is one major question that I 16 think nobody has actually answered. Well, the most 17 uncertain things are humans or nature, I think, and 18 what I heard also that is kind of new to me is this 19 area is a flood zone. 20 So my question is: Is there any plans 21 to prevent unexpected disturbance of the covering 22 or -- and/or the contaminated soil by nature 23 causes? 24 Nature causes equal floods, a sudden

104

1 hurricane, or -- I don't know if a typhoon would 2 come here, but tornadoes. Anything. An old bomb 3 was actually buried right next to it, and it 4 exploded. Well, I don't know if it's a natural 5 cause, but there is lots of things that are 6 unpredictable, and I don't know if the state right 7 now is a safe, stable state. 8 I guess that's the most largest fear 9 for everybody, because even though W.R. Grace or 10 other people say it's safe if we don't disturb it, 11 it's not just us that will disturb the whole thing. 12 That's my question. 13 MR. BECK: It's a -- it's a good 14 question; and yes, oftentimes sites are inspected 15 on a regular basis. I'm personally involved in 16 providing ongoing oversight to see the people 17 comply with the AUL going forward. 18 A site in Lynn, which is right on the 19 Lynn Harbor, we go out on a quarterly basis, and 20 maybe twice a year that we go out, we inspect the 21 site to see if there has been wave damage. After 22 major storm events, we go out and inspect the site. 23 It would -- it was planned to do this for this 24 particular site. It was not included in the AUL,

105

1 because we just were going to commit to do it. We 2 could include provisions such as that in the AUL 3 itself to have inspections on an ongoing basis. 4 That's a good suggestion. 5 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Now, we'll come 6 back over here. There has been a hand over here. 7 This gentleman, would you like to 8 speak? 9 STASH HOROWITZ: I will come to the 10 mic, the main mic. Thank you. 11 MS. JEGHELIAN: Would you identify 12 yourself, please. 13 STASH HOROWITZ: I am Stash Horowitz 14 from the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, 15 and I'm very impressed with what this particular 16 neighborhood has achieved already, and I hope 17 that the, you know, the old saying, eternal 18 vigilance -- the price of liberty and the price 19 of breathing is eternal vigilance in this 20 neighborhood, so I'm sure you will continue. 21 And I'm glad that former Councillor 22 Triantafillou got recognized. 23 Many other people, like Joe Josephs and 24 Aram and Michael, Mike Nakagawa and Michael

106

1 Brandon, and other people here work very, very hard 2 to keep this neighborhood safe, and I hope that the 3 new neighbors will quickly learn who they 4 are -- and I am sure I have omitted a lot of 5 people -- and work with them. And we, in the 6 Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, give full 7 support, including some support that we have gotten 8 through experience ourselves in Cambridgeport and 9 in East Cambridge. I want to talk a little bit 10 about that. 11 First of all, my condolences to Jack 12 and Steve Johnson, this whole department, for their 13 budget slashings, and I think the first thing we 14 need to do, if we're interested in the environment, 15 is to advocate for restoration of the budget to 16 these people, who are overworked and overburdened, 17 and even with the older budgets before they were 18 slashed were working full time and stretching 19 themselves out with good hearts and good intents to 20 do a good monitoring job. 21 Now that the govern -- the current 22 government has cut the budget, we need to get to 23 our State Reps and State Senators and gubernatorial 24 candidates and Governor and really lobby for

107

1 tripling and quadrupling budgets, which are now 2 necessary. 3 And if you saw the Globe today, you saw 4 similar things happen to the old MDC, the 5 observation and recreation, the park lands. They 6 have about one-twelfth the budget they need to do 7 the job for us. 8 So where is our tax money going? Good 9 question. I think we need to all ask that. 10 And so I praise Jack Miano and Steve 11 Johnson. 12 I want to tell you about a very nice 13 experience we had in Cambridgeport with the 14 Department. The Polaroid site on Mem. Drive goes 15 way, way back, a similar long industrial history. 16 Dover Stamping and Manufacturing was there. They 17 made all the dip sticks for the Model T Fords, 18 which are made down at the BU Bridge. They used to 19 make the Model T Fords and run them from top to 20 bottom and bottom to top. And the very long 21 history, this site had 2-3 dichloroethylene found 22 on there. DCE is a major contaminant, a 23 carcinogen, and was cleaned up and RAOed, and that 24 was -- the it had some petroleum on it that was

108

1 also cleaned up using a separate RTN, or at least 2 tracking numbers. They go through a process, which 3 as you see, has different phases and ends up in an 4 RAO. 5 It seems there is a little confusion 6 here between RAO and the petroleum clean-up, which 7 can be done and cleaned up, and RAOing a status quo 8 instead of cementing the surface with all that 9 asbestos beneath it. And as Jack said, and as I 10 suspect, and Katherine brought up, you really only 11 want to RAO a Tier 3 site. I think that is the 12 right tier -- I can't remember anymore -- when you 13 want to sell it. And even then, it is going to be 14 very hard to develop this site. 15 And there will be some oversight, but 16 there are developers who take hard sites like this 17 and develop them, like David Clem (phonetic 18 spelling) in Cambridge Research Park, and he found 19 a way to grind into the soil tons of cold tar, put 20 cement in it and convinced the powers to be that 21 this was an okay way to remediate. 22 So I have a question that comes from my 23 friend, Steve Kaiser, a man I respect a great deal, 24 and that is that the EPA, the powers that be on the

109

1 floodplain levels, have recently -- will recently 2 or might -- it looks like they are -- going to 3 increase the hundred year floodplain height by two 4 and a half feet, and that is not inches, but feet, 5 and that Steve feels, and my question is: Do you 6 feel as well, and how will you analyze it, is going 7 to have major repercussions on the hundred year 8 flood, the 50 year flood, and will that cause 9 underground movement of the asbestos; and if so, 10 where; what is the hydrology involved here; what is 11 the danger of movement off the site, and within the 12 site; can it, in fact, cause rising of the asbestos 13 to higher than three inches, if the area floods, or 14 when it floods? And it's whole batch of questions. 15 I wanted to say one more thing, and 16 that is that a closed RAO is not a closed RAO, as 17 Jack knows. The Polaroid site, which was slated to 18 be about a two-thirds of a million square feet of 19 commercial with a 600-car garage, the neighborhood 20 there really fought hard and got housing there 21 instead and 200 cars instead of 600. It's a better 22 development thanks to Jack and the DEP and Steve 23 Johnson, a lot of those people who helped us. 24 We did the research, and we came to

110

1 Jack's department, and we said, Well, there is more 2 contamination on this site that wasn't RAOed, and 3 we did research down at the industrial level, and I 4 think we had to go to Newton somewhere. Mr. Jardan 5 (phonetic spelling) did it -- many of you know 6 him -- and we presented evidence that there 7 might -- there was a high likelihood of zinc 8 contamination and other heavy metal contamination 9 on the site due to the industrial history, and I 10 was told for the first time that a site that had 11 been RAOed, the DEP opened it up and required a 12 targeted audit, which Haley & Aldrich did, and they 13 dug additional bore holes, and they found, in fact, 14 zinc was, I think, eight or 20 -- to 20 times the 15 allowable concentration. And they dug out quite a 16 lot of zinc, truck loads of contaminated soil and 17 carted it away, and this gave the neighborhood time 18 to organize and put in a couple of lawsuits, and we 19 were able to come to some settlement with the 20 Polaroid. 21 And by the way, David Vickery and 22 Spaulding & Sly, but he is also in partnership with 23 them. So -- and we had a -- it was a good 24 experience until Harvard University came along and

111

1 bought all the housing, and so we are still dealing 2 with that now. And Harvard wants it only for their 3 Harvard people, but we're talking with them. 4 But, yeah, back to the DEP. Don't -- 5 don't come down too heavy on these people. They 6 are doing a good job. They are trying their best, 7 and they need help. And so if you can do the 8 research for them, you can hire your own 9 consultants, give them the information. If you 10 disagree with the information that the respected 11 firm of Haley & Aldrich digs up, and that is 12 possible, that, you know, there is a lot of 13 scientific differences of opinion, generally, the 14 Department will go with the most, you know, 15 impressive; that is, if there is risk, and you 16 found more risk than they, generally, the 17 Department, if your results are good, your research 18 is good, will accept it. So things can be opened 19 up again, not just -- but it seems to me that the 20 property is up for sale, and we have to be 21 realistic about that. 22 So my -- another question I would ask, 23 and maybe the people here are not aware of it, what 24 is the likelihood that this property will be sold;

112

1 and if so, to whom; are their potential bidders 2 now; is there a P & S agreement on the property 3 now, and so on? 4 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Why don't we 5 have an answer to that, and we'll move on. 6 STASH HOROWITZ: I don't expect an 7 answer right now. 8 MS. JEGHELIAN: All right. 9 AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS: No, let's hear 10 the answer. 11 MS. JEGHELIAN: Bob, can you comment on 12 that. 13 MR. JENKINS: I think that is a fair 14 question, and I think it was raised earlier, is 15 it -- is it up for sale. 16 I happen to have the employee here, and 17 I can tell you I certainly hope not. And there 18 were 450 other people who are employed here and 19 certainly hope that the property is not for sale. 20 As far as I know, and I am the 21 individual who would be responsible in Cambridge, 22 and I can tell you, as far as I know, there is no 23 intention here to sell this property at this point 24 in time. There is no, certainly, purchase and

113

1 sale, and I would be the person in the position to 2 know. 3 MALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: What is 4 your title, sir? 5 MR. JENKINS: Vice President of 6 Operations, W.R. Grace, this division. 7 MS. JEGHELIAN: A question about Bob's 8 title. 9 Okay. Let's move over here. This 10 gentleman here. 11 DAVID BORRUS: Hi. My name is David 12 Borrus. I'm a Harvard Street resident, and I want 13 to speak a little bit to the issues of the 14 day-to-day work on a hazardous waste site. 15 I have 14 years experience as a pile 16 driver. Basically, those are the folks who do 17 supportive excavation, and big holes, big holes, 18 and often we get involved in what we would call 19 this dirty dirt. It's hazardous waste. It's 20 contaminated. And, in fact, for the last 10 years, 21 I have been teaching the OSHA hazardous waste 22 handling course for carpenters, pile drivers, 23 laborers, operating engineers, and so I know first 24 hand, because I do the refreshers to these crews

114

1 every year. They have to come in and take an AR 2 refresher course. 3 And so the sheer volume of asbestos in 4 the soil is worrisome for me. And whether it's 5 quantified or not is later on that will become more 6 important, but I think we talked about asbestos 7 very scientifically. 8 I'd like to talk about for a second the 9 way we discuss it with people who are going to work 10 with this, laborers and carpenters and pile drivers 11 who are going to be in this stuff, working in it. 12 Just think of it for a second as if you took a 13 large garbage bag, trash bag, and then took a 14 sharp, long, skinny, pointed stick, points on both 15 ends, and throw it in there, okay. That stick is 16 likely to get lodged and tangled, and it's not 17 going to come out. 18 Well, the bag represents your lung 19 sacks, and the stick, that single fiber, is a -- it 20 represents a fiber of asbestos. What happens is 21 your lung heals it over. It doesn't heal it over, 22 it forms scar tissue over it. Essentially, it 23 doesn't take a whole lot of this stuff. Once it's 24 blowing and it's airborne, it's very light, and it

115

1 just doesn't come out of your lungs. It gets in 2 and doesn't come out. 3 So small quantities of it are extremely 4 dangerous, and I press this, because -- and for 5 construction workers it's worse, because they are 6 exposed to silica all the time, concrete dust, so 7 they have got a whole host of things that are 8 coming into their lungs simply by virtue of being 9 on job sites that having nothing do with hazardous 10 waste, but just makes their lungs in tougher 11 conditions. 12 So it's an especially dangerous site 13 for construction workers, who already have got 14 preexisting conditions in their lungs; but that 15 being said, this brings me to the day-to-day 16 operations on a hazardous waste site, and I 17 listened with interest to the planner, Mr. Beck, 18 are you the -- you'd be the engineer who would be 19 designing the site safety health plan? And I would 20 just say I have worked with Haley & Aldrich 21 engineers, and you are a fine company, and you do 22 work on hazardous sites. I know your work, and a 23 lot of our members of our unions have worked with 24 your supervision.

116

1 But the reality is that Haley & 2 Aldrich, or whoever the -- the site supervising 3 engineering company is, are not doing the exact 4 work. The more complex the site, and this would be 5 a complex site, the more subcontractors you will 6 have doing specific tasks, which brings 7 up -- people have raised this point a couple of 8 times, what happens if. 9 Well, the more subcontractors you have, 10 the more likely for human error somewhere along the 11 way. That's just the way it goes. The supervising 12 engineers, one, two, perhaps three or four people 13 on site, the actual number of construction workers 14 is much larger. 15 And so my concern is that -- I'll use 16 the example from -- because I have seen it happen 17 many times, an example, and I know I talked about 18 earlier seven, eight years ago when there was 19 discussion about this site, was to do pile driving, 20 because it was less disturbing of the soil, but of 21 course we all know in the trade that you will 22 hit -- in New England, you will always hit an 23 obstruction. There will be excavation. Well, the 24 contractor doesn't really want to waste a lot of

117

1 time on that. He wants to dig that stuff out, dig 2 out the obstruction, get the pile in the ground. 3 So there is a -- speed is of essence, and what you 4 have got is a big pile of dirt sitting here that 5 needs to be wrapped and covered. Well, when this 6 happens, maybe the day before Fourth of July 7 weekend, whenever it happens, very often it is a 8 tarp made that covers this dirt, and typically that 9 is what I have seen done is simply that they put a 10 tarp over it. It will just blow off at some point. 11 If not that weekend, some other weekend. And 12 granted there will -- it's certainly -- the 13 supervisory company will come down, and come Monday 14 morning when there is a shredded tarp and half the 15 dust is blown away, or a portion of it, who knows, 16 there will be plenty of finger pointing, and there 17 will be typically the, you know, whoever gets the 18 blame is immaterial. The prevailing winds on this 19 site, and when we teach HazMat courses, we always 20 say look for the prevailing winds, if you're 21 dealing it. 22 The prevailing winds are from the west. 23 They will blow all over the neighborhood. That is 24 the way it goes. It's coming from right down

118

1 Route 2; and if you live on Harvey Street, like I 2 did, my door, I had to reorient it. I had to -- it 3 opened -- it opened the wrong way, I found, after 4 it blew off three times. 5 (Laughter.) 6 DAVID BORRUS: And I've got one door 7 you go open one way, and the other one the other 8 way, but just the winds are strong, and they blow 9 right down Harvey Street. So any kind of dust or 10 disturbance, any kind of excavated material, you 11 know, properly covered, perhaps it never will blow 12 away. But the problem is I have seen it too many 13 times. I have worked on haz sites, and I'm 14 thinking specifically of one where, you know, it 15 came in Monday morning, and the tarp got blown off 16 over the weekend. 17 And it does -- it doesn't matter whose 18 fault it is. There will be -- there will be plenty 19 of blame to go around. There will be lots of 20 finger pointing come Monday morning. And, you 21 know, it will be so noted, and there may be a 22 lawsuit, and somebody may go out of business, and 23 somebody may be fired for failure to perform, or 24 things like that, but the end result is there is

119

1 going to be asbestos blowing around the neighborhood. 2 That's the concern I have, just knowing the 3 day-to-day realities of it. 4 (Applause.) 5 DAVID BORRUS: And I think the 6 monitoring is also an interesting thing, because I 7 have seen that monitoring plans -- I will give you 8 an example of one we did on the Mass. Pike where it 9 was a -- it was a chemical spill -- a chemical area 10 that is over by a chemical plant on the Mass. Pike, 11 and there was a monitoring plan in place, and it 12 called for monitoring, air monitoring three, four 13 times a day, and I could just -- boy, the smell was 14 terrible. We were excavating. We were putting in 15 what is called lagging. As we excavated, the smell 16 got worse and worse. Then I went up. And 17 typically the person who is assigned to do the 18 monitoring, in this case it was, you know, the 19 youngest guy on the pole. You go down in the 20 trench with the monitor and sniff. 21 Well, he was going at 7:00, at noontime 22 and at 3:00, typically the hours we weren't 23 working. It was either before the job, it was at 24 lunchtime, it was at the end of the day, not when

120

1 the excavator was in there digging it up. 2 So I think monitoring plans, even 3 though they look great on paper, and I imagine the 4 site plan that you come up with would be the kind 5 we use to teach in our class, this is what a 6 good -- you know, we have got to do a HAZ site, and 7 these are the parameters; but the human error, the 8 human element is important. 9 And so what I think what we have is a 10 complex site, with the level of engineering 11 controls you have introduced, meaning lots of 12 contractors, which means more complications. So I 13 think that's my main concern is for future 14 development. It shouldn't be done, because it's 15 too complicated, and we're too close to a sensitive 16 area. 17 That's my concern. 18 MALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: No 19 development; is that what you're saying? 20 DAVID BORRUS: That's what I was 21 intending, yes. 22 (Applause.) 23 MS. JEGHELIAN: Thank you for those 24 comments.

121

1 (Applause.) 2 MS. JEGHELIAN: I'm noticing that it's 3 10 minutes of 10:00, and I just want to do a quick 4 time check. Sorry. 5 I would like to take a few more 6 questions, but then I do -- because the 7 stenographer actually has to leave at 10:00, I 8 would like to make sure that we wrap up, and just 9 everybody is clear up our next steps before you 10 leave. So we will come back here. 11 Denise, do you have your hand up? 12 DENISE GUERIN: Denise Guerin, 13 Montgomery Street. 14 I just wanted -- I just want to follow 15 up very briefly on something that Katherine 16 Triantafillou made an excellent point in connection 17 with any potential bankruptcy proceedings down the 18 road. So I am just saying this, because I want it 19 into the record to emphasize the importance of 20 putting anything that we want, making sure that it 21 goes into the AUL, which will be recorded at the 22 Registry of Deeds, because -- and I am saying this 23 as someone who is an attorney, who practices in the 24 area of real estate and small business, because

122

1 contracts can and regularly are suspended by 2 trustees in bankruptcy, which is to say when 3 someone declares bankruptcy, a trustee is appointed 4 by the Bankruptcy Court to represent the bankrupt, 5 and that trustee has the power to suspend contracts 6 of any kind. And they usually do so in an attempt 7 to protect the estate of the -- of the bankrupt. 8 Consequently, anything of any 9 importance to us, we should strive to be sure that 10 it goes into the AUL, which will be recorded and 11 will run with the land. 12 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Here. 13 KELLY MATTHEWS: Hi. I am Kelly 14 Matthews. I live on Jackson Street, and I am a 15 member of Alewife Neighbors, Inc., and I think 16 still a member of the Alewife Study Group. 17 I think I understand from Jack Miano's 18 point earlier that any development that occurs in 19 the future is the responsibility of the landowner 20 to restart the MCP and make sure the AUL is 21 followed; is that right? 22 My question is are there any legal 23 penalties that apply if future owners and 24 developers don't follow the AUL, or does the full

123

1 responsibility continue to follow the neighbors 2 to -- I mean, I think it is great that we have 3 remained vigilant, but we get tired sometimes, too. 4 MS. JEGHELIAN: Jack, can you address 5 that? 6 Bill. 7 JACK MIANO: Yeah, that's sort of an 8 interesting quasilegal question, I guess. What 9 happens there is that the -- the -- the RA -- the 10 Response Action Outcome -- the closure report 11 relies on the activity and use limitation to 12 maintain a condition of no significant risk, so 13 this new owner is required to follow all the 14 obligations and conditions of the AUL. 15 If they do not then what has happened 16 there is the Department views that as Response 17 Action Outcome. The closure report is no longer 18 valid, because you're not following all the 19 required conditions; and therefore, perhaps you 20 don't have a condition of no significant risk at 21 this point in time when you're not following the 22 AUL. 23 So then that's what we call a 24 re-opener, and it's possible then that the

124

1 Department would, if it had knowledge of that, 2 would jump back in and start up the process and 3 then require them to meet all the requirements of 4 the statute and the regulations. 5 MS. JEGHELIAN: I'm sorry. Did you 6 have... 7 MR. BECK: DEP also has -- let me just 8 punctuate Jack's remarks -- has the ability to 9 issue some pretty stiff fines, so there is some 10 $25,000-a-day fines that can be issued for flagrant 11 violations of AULs. 12 I can tell you, not based on my own 13 experience, but the experience of others, that DEP, 14 if they find out about such things doesn't mess 15 around with it. 16 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. Thank you, Jack 17 and Bill. 18 These two gentlemen back here, and then 19 the woman against the wall. 20 JESSE GORDON: Hi. This is a pretty 21 simple question. It might be for DEP or Grace. 22 You know, I hear -- 23 AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Who are you? 24 MR. GORDON: Jesse Gordon of Harvey

125

1 Street. 2 I hear that if there is going to be 3 development, it's going to be on the order of a 4 $30 million hotel, something, a complex, and I'm 5 wondering the ballpark of what it would actually 6 cost, not to cap the asbestos, but to clean it up 7 over the site. 8 What is the ballpark range of what that 9 would actually cost, not to do any sort mediation 10 during the construction, but actually to clean it 11 up, as if it were a, you know, total cleanup site; 12 and also on a separate number, what would it cost 13 to clean up Jerry's Pond, because that, as I see 14 it, the MDC pool is right next to Jerry's Pond, 15 that in the summer is standing room only, so there 16 clearly is a strong demand for it. I'm wondering 17 what it would cost to make Jerry's Pond swimmable, 18 and I suspect somewhere a lot lower than $30 million, 19 but I would like to hear from DEP and Grace, what 20 is your estimate of the ballpark of those two 21 clean-ups? 22 MS. JEGHELIAN: I'm not going to go let 23 Jack get off the hook either. 24 MR. BECK: We have not done a cost

126

1 estimate of that. I can -- I can state that 2 excavation and the clean-up of the site, to dig all 3 the asbestos up, it would be a lot more intrusive, 4 create a lot more potential issues than a development. 5 I don't know what the cost would be. We have 6 never -- we have never, in fact, considered it. 7 Jack, do you have anything to add to 8 that? 9 MS. JEGHELIAN: Do you have anything to 10 add, Jack? 11 JACK MIANO: I can only add that for 12 properties smaller than this to move significantly 13 less volume of dirt, you definitely would be 14 running into the -- in the -- in the -- around 10 15 million probably. You'd been in tens of millions, 16 I would think, to move all of that dirt, and that 17 would be a -- that would be a very large 18 undertaking. And then, of course, as was stated, 19 there would be the potential exposure during that 20 situation. But it would be a significant amount of 21 money. It may be enough to compromise such a 22 project. It's possible. 23 JESSE GORDON: What about dredging the 24 pond?

127

1 JACK MIANO: Dredging the pond, of 2 course, is a smaller operation, and it would be in 3 the wet, so that's good for dealing with asbestos, 4 but I don't know about the costs. 5 MS. JEGHELIAN: I'm going to -- the 6 representative had a question. Then I'll come back 7 to the two people here, and then we're going to 8 have to wrap up. 9 REPRESENTATIVE ANNE PAULSEN: Thank you 10 very much. And the question I have is whether or 11 not it would be appropriate to add the issues about 12 the AUL to the action items, and not just have them 13 as questions, but rather actually on the action 14 item board for some kind of resolution as to the 15 language that should be in the AUL. 16 MS. JEGHELIAN: So maybe discussing 17 further, together with Grace and the neighbors, 18 language for the AUL. We could put that together. 19 Thank you. 20 Okay. And then this gentleman in the 21 red. 22 MALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: I think my 23 question is along the same line. 24 Could we put in the AUL conformity with

128

1 the city asbestos ordinance, because we heard from 2 Grace that they have no interest in challenging it. 3 They're happy, but some other buyer could decide to 4 take that one to court for whatever reason. 5 Could we put that in the AUL, and if 6 so -- 7 MR. BECK: The AUL says that you need 8 to comply with all local, state and federal 9 regulations, so it would include -- it would 10 include them. 11 MALE AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Until the 12 buyer contests it. 13 Could we put the buyer with the terms 14 of the existing one in there? 15 MS. JEGHELIAN: Why don't we put that 16 on as something that we can -- as we have these 17 future discussions about adding things to the AUL, 18 let's put that on the list. 19 And then this woman here. 20 LISA BIRK: I am Lisa Birk from Kassul 21 Park, a block from here. I'm actually speaking at 22 the moment for neighbor Rick Snedeker, who lives on 23 Clifton Street and had to go. 24 This is for Mr. Beck.

129

1 Does the AUL contain generic boilerplate 2 language, or is the language specific to the Grace 3 site? 4 MR. BECK: A good question. It was 5 developed specifically for the Grace site. I mean, 6 there is obviously similarities from AUL to AUL, 7 but we sat down and crafted this for Grace. 8 LISA BIRK: Thank you. 9 And if there is a review, is there a 10 sign-off process from the neighborhood prior to the 11 AUL being recorded? 12 MR. BECK: Is there a sign-off process? 13 LISA BIRK: From neighbors, neighbors 14 have to sign off before that? 15 MR. BECK: There is no requirement for 16 that. 17 LISA BIRK: Okay. So maybe that could 18 go on the action agenda. 19 And then lastly, in terms of the 20 $25,000 fine daily, to get Jack Miano here from the 21 DEP when we are at Phase II of Phase V, the 22 clean-up process where Grace has tested the site 23 really, really well, but has not cleaned it up, and 24 wants to get out of state oversight, this is the

130

1 moment when the state is going to sign off. The 2 feds signed off, because they said, you know what, 3 there is no building happening here. 4 So the state said, all right, there is 5 no building happening here; you can don't much with 6 asbestos, so we are about to sign off. We could 7 not get Jack Miano to attend this meeting without 8 first having neighbors call. We had to organize 9 ourselves. We had to call DEP. That didn't work. 10 We did a letter writing campaign. That didn't 11 work. We then called State Rep. Anne Paulsen, who 12 had a hard time getting through to DEP. She was 13 very frustrated. We called State Rep. Alice Wolf. 14 We called State Rep. Warren Tolman. It took three 15 State Reps and a lot of neighborhood organizations 16 to get one representative from the DEP here, when 17 we're at the end of the state oversight. The 18 neighbors are the only things that stand between us 19 and the asbestos in the soil. Everything 20 disappears, except neighbors, and we have -- the 21 neighbors have been a steady, consistent, 22 persistent force for getting the right thing done 23 here. 24 As you can see, staying here -- coming

131

1 here right before the holidays or right after the 2 holidays, coming around the building, so if you are 3 elderly or disabled it's tough to get here, unless 4 you knew to drive. 5 If you possibly, possibly can, we have 6 15 minute volunteer activities. We have one hour 7 volunteer activities. We have two hour volunteer 8 activities. Just check -- put your name, sign up 9 on that green sheet that you want to volunteer. We 10 need you. And the reason that Grace has come to 11 the table as much as they have, I believe personally, 12 is because neighbors have consistently over time, 13 with the help of politicians and City Councilors 14 and other people at the right time, we have stood 15 and said, This needs to happen. We need these 16 kinds of protections from asbestos, and we need 17 these kinds of protections written into the AUL, 18 into the deed, and into any public process. 19 Thank you. 20 (Applause.) 21 MS. JEGHELIAN: Thank you. 22 Ma'am, I'm sorry. We do have to end, 23 because our stenographer has to leave. What I 24 would ask is I just want to walk through a few

132

1 wrap-up items and give Bob a chance to make a quick 2 closing. So while I get my notes to just summarize 3 the next steps, I just want to give Bob a chance to 4 say goodbye. 5 MR. JENKINS: I think just looking at 6 some of the action items we have agreed to tonight, 7 obviously we have taken a list of action items and 8 tried to record all the questions here. 9 As I said earlier, we have a commitment 10 to provide these back to you folks as soon as 11 possible, hopefully within 10 days. We have a 12 commitment to have Susan meet with the neighborhood 13 representatives to help to debrief there. We will 14 be debriefing and taking a look, obviously, in 15 trying to address as many questions as well as we 16 can. And I think, as I have said a couple of 17 times, our commitment is to try to improve the 18 dialogue that we have with the neighborhood, to try 19 to establish something on a more -- on a more 20 ongoing basis, rather than something that comes at 21 the end of the -- of a legal process. 22 Thank you. 23 (Applause.) 24 MS. JEGHELIAN: Okay. So just to

133

1 recap, I want to make sure you all know the 20th is 2 the new deadline for your comments to come in. 3 Before you leave tonight, please feel 4 free to write out any of your questions on either 5 the index cards, or any paper you want, and bring 6 them up to Melissa here at the table, Melissa 7 McEwen at Haley & Aldrich. 8 I will be in touch with the neighbor 9 representatives that I met with, Denise Guerin and 10 Ronnie Millar, about doing the debrief, and working 11 on making sure the issues that need to be responded 12 to in the RAO are responded to. 13 In addition, there's the development of 14 a Grace and neighborhood communication plan that we 15 will follow up on; the discussion of Grace and the 16 neighborhood scientists and other experts on the 17 volume of the contaminates and the sources; and 18 then further discussions among Grace and the 19 neighbors about how to structure the AUL to be as 20 protective as possible. 21 Okay. So thank you all so much, and 22 sorry about coming out on the holidays, but have a 23 happy holidays and a safe trip home tonight. 24 Thanks so much.

134

1 AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS: Thank you. 2 (Applause.) 3 MS. JEGHELIAN: Questions can be -- you 4 can either give them to me or to Melissa up here at 5 the green -- at the table. 6 Thank you. 7 8 (Whereupon, at 10:02 p.m., the hearing 9 was adjourned.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

135

1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 I, Marianne Kusa-Ryll, Certified 5 Realtime Reporter, do hereby certify the foregoing 6 to be a true and complete transcript of the 7 proceedings of the Public Meeting regarding W.R. 8 Grace Co.-Conn. Site at Alewife taken on December 16, 9 2004, at 62 Whittemore Avenue, Cambridge, 10 Massachusetts, Facilitator Susan M. Jeghelian 11 presiding. 12 13 14 Marianne Kusa-Ryll, RMR, CRR 15 Massachusetts CSR No. 116393 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Contact the Alewife Study Group, North Cambridge Massachusetts, by email at information@alewife.org